Religion and natural disasters

[Esau of Isaac]

To me these three (+omnipresence for a healthy pantheistic view of the world I guess) together actually ring a bell because one who is good and bearing boundless gnosis (knowing, as well as knowing what is good) would then know the purpose of the things we fail to decipher and provide explanaton for (and we fall short and fail in general, not only there).

I wonder if people even try to ponder about the 'love of God' more these days. I guess you could pick (to argue against) the belief that God is this sentimental bearded old man in the skies who tears up whenever a heterosexual couple marries and clenches fists when the same happens with godless sodomites, to quote Sir Phelps, and your discourse could have some value considering many people in the West, somehow, do envisage this picture with some variations. But you're unlikely to find this interpretation anywhere in serious traditional theology where the divine is seen as a Mind, formless and not prone to emotions, because emotions are passions and passion form the basis for affliction. More pantheistic visions are possible (god(-s) everywhere).

Yes and no. The notion that divine means wholly separate or at least nebulously linked at best from mortal interpretations of morality is undisputed (although it leaves the interpretation of God as omnibenevolent quite weak on its face). The idea that god is indeed unfeeling and not prone to emotions, however, is a puzzling one to offer in either traditionalist interpretations or indeed modern ones. Can you expound more on that?

Also I'm afraid I couldn't really understand the latter half of your post.

Edited September 5, 2013 by Esau of Isaac

[dondon151]

I'm not so sure though... Isn't this what priests do? Read scriptures and find a way to make it resound with people's everyday lives? Make it easier to see how people can apply things in the bible, without necessarily having to follow it to a tee and stone people who say otherwise? (Or maybe my church is just one of those "neo-hippie-liberal churches", like someone on that forum said haha)

if each worshiper's belief were individual, then there would be no need to categorize people into christians, muslims, and hindus. clearly, it is not. religious authorities have tailored their interpretations of the word of god to more or less agree with the contemporary zeitgeist (or, in the case of fundamentalists, the zeitgeist of hundreds of years past). i would say that they are, for the most part - and by most, i do mean nearly all - not willing to let one come to his own understanding of his belief in god, but rather to impose their dogma on him.

As for people who have a "dogmatic, non-analytic belief in their religion", I can only really speak of my personal experience, but I find people like these quite few and far in-between. They do exist, and more often than not, they have a reason for believing this way (Times of hardship where their only real pillar of strength came from religion, for one) which is understandable, but they're not what I'd think to be the majority of a religious populace...? They're just very vocal of their beliefs.

i would submit that any belief in religion is, per definition, dogmatic and non-analytic. belief is, per definition, not rigorously provable. it doesn't take much effort to point out how a religious text is either self-contradictory or possesses elements that are thoroughly opposed to our understanding of the world in modern times. one can point out the fallacy of an omnipotent god in a world where not everyone believes in him. or how religious texts explicitly condone actions that would today be viewed as crimes against humanity. or how there is simply no evidence outside of the holy texts for the occurrence of miracles, since all of the evidence of modern science refutes them.

i'm sure that the religious will have some sort of hand-wavy explanation of all of these problems, ranging from citing the word of god as evidence to relegating the text to mere figurative language. whatever, i am not interested in that argument right now. the issue here for the religious is that one either believes in the fundamentals or makes progressive concessions to the point where his religion is no longer really a religion. it used to be not too long ago that gays and atheists went to hell with no exception, but now the gates of heaven are open to them (at least, in the catholic church). these contradictory statements both are the infallible word of the catholic authority. now, either you tell me that god changed his mind in the year 2013, or that pope francis is just one smart dude who's in touch with public opinion.

(or, you know, mormons and black people.)

If so, first of all, it doesn't necessarily imply that the two are going to be raped (though I can see how you would infer it). And even if it did, it's clearly not meant to be taken literally, as it even says right at the beginning...

Samaria is Oholah, and Jerusalem is Oholibah.

So basically, those two women were simply used as symbols to represent Jerusalem and Samaria, whom God described as nations who "chased after other lovers".

i think you've taken a step backwards here. in your defense of god's allowance - nay, encouragement - of rape, or at least of a brutal execution, you've managed to argue that it was not rape, but genocide, that god prescribed. a just and loving god, indeed.

Edited September 5, 2013 by dondon151

[pinkbubblegum]

You obviously haven't met the right religious people.

I... suppose so? Though I'm not entirely certain what the "right" religious people are supposed to be like xD

if each worshiper's belief were individual, then there would be no need to categorize people into christians, muslims, and hindus. clearly, it is not. religious authorities have tailored their interpretations of the word of god to more or less agree with the contemporary zeitgeist (or, in the case of fundamentalists, the zeitgeist of hundreds of years past). i would say that they are, for the most part - and by most, i do mean nearly all - not willing to let one come to his own understanding of his belief in god, but rather to impose their dogma on him.

I'm rather curious why that has to be the case though? I find that different religions are classified because they have different deities, practices, ideologies, etc. but at the end of the day, I think they all serve a common purpose of... I suppose setting up guidelines and examples to how one can find peace-- or whatever other purpose they're striving for, but can't really seem to be able to achieve. To be perfectly honest, I feel like I'm grossly oversimplifying religion, to the point that I'm not sure if I'm making much sense haha.

But I've found that religion has always been a very personal thing. Not cold and stringent, like a set of rules to be followed else be whipped. And because I've have nothing but positive experiences from it (as well as with religious people, really! Those that I know of are quite warm and unimposing with their beliefs, because it's only common courtesy, I'd think, for one not to impose), the religion that I'm familiar with isn't at all what you describe it to be.

i'm sure that the religious will have some sort of hand-wavy explanation of all of these problems, ranging from citing the word of god as evidence to relegating the text to mere figurative language. whatever, i am not interested in that argument right now.

the issue here for the religious is that one either believes in the fundamentals or makes progressive concessions to the point where his religion is no longer really a religion.

Haha. I understand. There's bitter humor in the futility of arguing scriptures because at the end of the day, I find that neither side gives in to what the other side says. But well, that's how belief works xD;

I really have to disagree on the bolded part, but once again, this is simply based on what religion is relative to myself and its purpose to me.

Edited September 5, 2013 by pinkbubblegum

[Espinosa]

'Belief in religion' is an oxymoron. Religion is a process that either happens or it doesn't. Dondon's understanding of 'dogma' is appallingly superficial and stereotypical to the extreme - I expected better of you.

Anyway, this has turned into the same pointless, boring debate that's the probably the only kind of religious debate the major bulk of internet is capable of. You folks enjoy yourselves if you can while I'll do something more constructive.

[Phoenix Wright]

'Belief in religion' is an oxymoron. Religion is a process that either happens or it doesn't. Dondon's understanding of 'dogma' is appallingly superficial and stereotypical to the extreme - I expected better of you.

Anyway, this has turned into the same pointless, boring debate that's the probably the only kind of religious debate the major bulk of internet is capable of. You folks enjoy yourselves if you can while I'll do something more constructive.

out of curiosity, what is it that you'd like to discuss about religion? what debate about it interests you?

[euklyd]

'Belief in religion' is an oxymoron. Religion is a process that either happens or it doesn't. Dondon's understanding of 'dogma' is appallingly superficial and stereotypical to the extreme - I expected better of you.

Anyway, this has turned into the same pointless, boring debate that's the probably the only kind of religious debate the major bulk of internet is capable of. You folks enjoy yourselves if you can while I'll do something more constructive.

I assumed dondon was referring to "beliefs found in religion" (or "religious beliefs"), not "believing in religion".

And calling those beliefs "dogmatic" seems entirely reasonable. If we're running off dogma being defined as "a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true" then I would say most religious beliefs are dogma, since either something is the word of God and therefore not arguable, or it isn't and then why is it a religious belief?

I'm interested in hearing why this is shallow and stereotypical (I mean it may be stereotypical, but that doesn't mean it's wrong). Of course since you've indicated that you'd rather waste your time in this argument, other people are welcome to answer as well.

[katerra]

For the same reasons as Noah's Ark I guess. Religion deities are always supposed to think and be "beyond human understanding" so I have no idea how to inlcude any logic here. Religion =/= Logic imo...

Edited September 5, 2013 by katerra

[Esau of Isaac]

'Anyway, this has turned into the same pointless, boring debate that's the probably the only kind of religious debate the major bulk of internet is capable of. You folks enjoy yourselves if you can while I'll do something more constructive.

What is it about debates that turn people into the most self-aggrandizing dickbags when they don't feel like participating?

[Phoenix Wright]

What is it about debates that turn people into the most self-aggrandizing dickbags when they don't feel like participating?

I don't know. I've always felt that if you don't wanna participate you just don't post but I guess that's not the way it goes 'round here.

[FionordeQuester]

i think you've taken a step backwards here. in your defense of god's allowance - nay, encouragement - of rape, or at least of a brutal execution, you've managed to argue that it was not rape, but genocide, that god prescribed. a just and loving god, indeed.

Ok, first of all, the very idea that God actually encourages rape is an absurd proposition. Why in the world would any God go as far as to show disdain for pre-marital sex, and then turn around and say that rape is ok?! Do you have any idea how contradictory that is? The only way I can think of anyone arriving at this conclusion is if they read passages like "kill all the men, but keep the women for yourself", or "kill everyone but the virgin girls" and the like, and then just assumed that he was allowing his soldiers to rape the women.

Even then though, it's obvious he was not, because...

1) Considering that most people married at like, 15 or so, most men old enough to be in the military would already have been married by then (and would therefore be committing adultery by raping women).

2) There wasn't exactly anywhere else for those women to go when women weren't allowed to own property at that point in time (heck, that was probably one of the only reasons God even permitted polygamy to begin with. At least with that, widows had a better chance of being housed and fed).

Now, I'm guessing the soldiers of the OTHER evil nations did that to Israel's men and women, but Israel had become extremely evil by that point though. Before God allowed them to be taken into captivity, they were....

1) Sacrificing their children to fertility God's.

2) Filled the land with violence and bloodshed.

3) Killed people who should not die, and keeping people alive who should not have lived.

4) Strengthened the hands of the wicked, so that they don't turn from their wicked way to save their lives.

5) Sacrificing their children to fertility Gods!

6) Was actually more wicked than Sodom.

7) Would rob each other by violence.

8) And then of course, they would do all the blaspheming and adultery and the like in addition to the above. You know, in addition to SACRIFICING THEIR CHILDREN TO FERTILITY GODS! (yes, I did think that was worth repeating thrice).

And even when God promised all of that, he also promised to build them back up and make them great again. So in this case, I think the punishment fit the crime, especially considering that the chances of finding a nation at that time who would subjugate a nation but NOT mistreat their women...weren't exactly high, to say the least. I really do think that God, if he thought any other way was possible to bring them back to being good people, wouldn't have let Israel be razed the way it was. But even then, God wasn't telling his own people to do this so much as he was allowing them to be overcome by the evil nations surrounding them....

So basically, what I think you were supposed to take out of this wasn't "You should totally rape evil women", but was supposed to be "what goes around comes around. Don't do evil to others, or others will do evil to you".

Edited September 6, 2013 by FionordeQuester

[dondon151]

I assumed dondon was referring to "beliefs found in religion" (or "religious beliefs"), not "believing in religion".

yes, excuse me if i used a poor choice of words.

Dondon's understanding of 'dogma' is appallingly superficial and stereotypical to the extreme - I expected better of you.

i respectfully disagree. euklyd's quoted definition is from wikipedia, although if you look on dictionary.com, its definition of the word states that dogma is authoritative and unquestionably true. if you consider religion, or at least organized religion, it is quite authoritative, and it claims to be quite unquestionably true. so i am rather perplexed that you expected anything else of me. i am curious as to what your understanding of "dogma" is.

I'm rather curious why that has to be the case though? I find that different religions are classified because they have different deities, practices, ideologies, etc. but at the end of the day, I think they all serve a common purpose of... I suppose setting up guidelines and examples to how one can find peace-- or whatever other purpose they're striving for, but can't really seem to be able to achieve. To be perfectly honest, I feel like I'm grossly oversimplifying religion, to the point that I'm not sure if I'm making much sense haha.

if you don't mind me making an oversimplification for a moment, christianity is basically judaism with another book, and islam adds another book on top of that. it's a bit more complicated than that in reality, but the fact of the matter is that three very different religions share the same god and many similar practices and ideologies. different denominations of christians, jews, and muslims claim that they are right and that their fellow believers in different denominations are wrong. now assume for a moment that every christian, jew, and muslim came to his own slightly different understanding of his religion in which he is right and everyone else is wrong (because religion has no evidence to suggest that it is right other than the evidence that you have for yourself). it would be quite absurd to label every believer individually!

But I've found that religion has always been a very personal thing. Not cold and stringent, like a set of rules to be followed else be whipped. And because I've have nothing but positive experiences from it (as well as with religious people, really! Those that I know of are quite warm and unimposing with their beliefs, because it's only common courtesy, I'd think, for one not to impose), the religion that I'm familiar with isn't at all what you describe it to be.

i would venture to say that most religious people are quite agreeable. the problem is that certain religions propagate beliefs that can be warped in a very harmful way. fortunately, most of us possess enough faculty of critical thinking that we know that it is not right to justify poor treatment of others based on race, religion, sex, and more recently, sexual orientation, that the bible, qu'ran, etc. explicitly condone.

Ok, first of all, the very idea that God actually encourages rape is an absurd proposition. Why in the world would any God go as far as to show disdain for pre-marital sex, and then turn around and say that rape is ok?! Do you have any idea how contradictory that is? The only way I can think of anyone arriving at this conclusion is if they read passages like "kill all the men, but keep the women for yourself", or "kill everyone but the virgin girls" and the like, and then just assumed that he was allowing his soldiers to rape the women.

of course i know how contradictory that is. that is the point!

and suppose that these israelite armies did kill all of the men (which in itself is genocidal and absolutely abhorrent) and keep all of the virgin girls. what do you supposed they did with the virgin girls? give them land? suffrage? basic rights? i mean, consider this passage from numbers:

"Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man."

no, really, what could you possibly think they did?

So in this case, I think the punishment fit the crime, especially considering that the chances of finding a nation at that time who would subjugate a nation but NOT mistreat their women...weren't exactly high, to say the least. I really do think that God, if he thought any other way was possible to bring them back to being good people, wouldn't have let Israel be razed the way it was. But even then, God wasn't telling his own people to do this so much as he was allowing them to be overcome by the evil nations surrounding them....

i think that there is something severely wrong with your moral compass if you believe that the genocide and mass rape of peoples is a suitable punishment for any crime. even a godless person such as myself could never condone that!

and once more, the omnipotence of the abrahamic god is called into question here. if it is right to not mistreat women, to not liken them to livestock (as is done in the tenth commandment), then why did god not simply decree to the israelites to treat their women as equals or else be punished to an eternity of hellfire? that really does not seem so inconceivable!

and i'll just leave you with this excerpt from judges:

"... the man took his concubine and sent her outside to them, and they raped her and abused her throughout the night, and at dawn they let her go. At daybreak the woman went back to the house where her master was staying, fell down at the door and lay there until daylight. When her master got up in the morning and opened the door of the house and stepped out to continue on his way, there lay his concubine, fallen in the doorway of the house, with her hands on the threshold. He said to her, "Get up; let's go." But there was no answer. Then the man put her on his donkey and set out for home. When he reached home, he took a knife and cut up his concubine, limb by limb, into twelve parts and sent them into all the areas of Israel."

Edited September 6, 2013 by dondon151

[FionordeQuester]

"... the man took his concubine and sent her outside to them, and they raped her and abused her throughout the night, and at dawn they let her go. At daybreak the woman went back to the house where her master was staying, fell down at the door and lay there until daylight. When her master got up in the morning and opened the door of the house and stepped out to continue on his way, there lay his concubine, fallen in the doorway of the house, with her hands on the threshold. He said to her, "Get up; let's go." But there was no answer. Then the man put her on his donkey and set out for home. When he reached home, he took a knife and cut up his concubine, limb by limb, into twelve parts and sent them into all the areas of Israel."

Yes, and that was a horrific act that the Bible did not condone in any way whatsoever. I mean jeez, the very title of that section is...

Gibeah’s Crime

...and then there was the section literally right below what you posted, that said...

And so it was that all who saw it said, “No such deed has been done or seen from the day that the children of Israel came up from the land of Egypt until this day. Consider it, confer, and speak up!”

How much more of a condemnation do you need?

Edited September 6, 2013 by FionordeQuester

[dondon151]

Yes, and that was a horrific act that the Bible did not condone in any way whatsoever. I mean jeez, the very title of that section is...

Gibeah’s Crime

the title of the section does not in any way condemn the act of the particular levite who offered up his concubine so that she may be raped by the inhabitants of gibeah (who were, by the way, homosexuals, and therefore wicked). this is a salient example of the mistreatment of women that is so commonplace in the old testament. since you seem to be a tad confused here, i didn't choose that excerpt as an example of god's encouragement of rape, but of the mistreatment of women.

...and then there was the section literally right below what you posted, that said...

And so it was that all who saw it said, “No such deed has been done or seen from the day that the children of Israel came up from the land of Egypt until this day. Consider it, confer, and speak up!”

How much more of a condemnation do you need?

they were not speaking of the acts of the levite, but the acts of the benjamites of gibeah. let me make it perfectly clear here: someone offered up his mistress to be raped, then cut up her dead body to be used in a similar manner to that of mail.

of course, what was god's punishment for the benjamites? he oversaw the slaughter of 25,000 of them. and, just for shits and giggles, 40,000 of the "good" guys also died in the civil war.

i would appreciate it if you could address all of my concerns (particularly the bolded excerpt), please.

Edited September 6, 2013 by dondon151

[eclipse]

That's a lot about religion and not so much about natural disasters (TC, your call). Also. . .

What is it about debates that turn people into the most self-aggrandizing dickbags when they don't feel like participating?

It's a touchy subject for a lot of folks, I guess. I think the recent topic flare-up should be proof enough of this.

I'd offer up comments on the current Bible passages being thrown about, but I'm pretty sure I'm missing a ton of context. Better to stay silent on the matter in this case.

[FionordeQuester]

the title of the section does not in any way condemn the act of the particular levite who offered up his concubine so that she may be raped by the inhabitants of gibeah (who were, by the way, homosexuals, and therefore wicked). this is a salient example of the mistreatment of women that is so commonplace in the old testament. since you seem to be a tad confused here, i didn't choose that excerpt as an example of god's encouragement of rape, but of the mistreatment of women.

Alright then, yes, the Israelite culture did not treat women the way they should have. I said as much when I covered why the Old Testament laws should not be literally taken as God's perfect plan for the treatment of women. He did allow polygamy and the like, but only because of the hardness of men's hearts, not because he wanted that to be the case.

they were not speaking of the acts of the levite, but the acts of the benjamites of gibeah. let me make it perfectly clear here: someone offered up his mistress to be raped, then cut up her dead body to be used in a similar manner to that of mail.

I see. And you're saying that, because that section didn't make more of a point to say "that Levite was bad!", you're worried that it promotes women as inferior. Personally, I thought it did implied guilt on the Levirite's with that statement at the end, but it certainly isn't as strong as what you'd usually read in our novels. It's certainly a good point, but one thing you have to realize about the Bible is that it's actually fairly dispassionate in a lot of what it portrays.

For example, before Saul became Israel's king, God very clearly warned the future kings not to "multiply their wives" or their horses. But when King Solomon took on no less than SEVEN...HUNDRED...WIIIIIIVES (yes, I'm being completely serious), and 300 hundred concubines (because the wives weren't enough, apparently), the Bible doesn't say anything about it other than that...well...that Solomon got himself 700 wives and 300 concubines. Yet, you can't tell me it wasn't still a very clear violation of God's wishes.

And before you bring up David...yes, God did indeed say to him "I would rather you had just asked me for more wives rather than raping Bathsheba" (for which he severely punished David for), but to that, I have two theories.

1) First of all, just because God was willing to give it doesn't necessarily mean he was happy. Before he instilled King Saul, God flat out told the Israelite's that they were foolish for asking for a King to govern them, and basically compared their future king's to slave owners. And still, they stubbornly resisted, and so, presumably because of how lawless they were without a king, God gave them their wish and allowed them to suffer the consequences of that wish.

2) Also, King David's harem had...well, "only" 10 wives/concubines by the time of Bathsheba (yes, I know, it's still a lot, but the typical Israelite king would go on to have like, 40-50+, minimum...it really can't be overemphasized just how much Israel tried God's patience). It...could be that God was willing to be lenient partially because of that? And was planning on giving him widows for those concubines, so that they got to live in the lap of luxury rather than in a desolate home with no protector?

I'll admit, I'm not really sure what God's reasoning was behind that line. In fact, while I pose it as a theory, the second choice is somewhat questionable even to me, so...who knows? I do have faith in the fact that, if David has indeed asked him for that rather than raping Bathsheba, God would've made it a happy arrangement for everyone involved. That, and I'm fairly comfortable with number 1, so there's also that.

EDIT: Also, I know some future readers will argue that Bathsheba was a harlot who came to David willingly. I say bollocks to that, because when God administered his righteous fury on David, he made absolutely no mention of Bathsheba being responsible for any wrongdoing. He laid the blame squarely at David's feet, implying to me that David coerced (and therefore raped) her in some way, even if it wasn't by sheer brute strength.

Edited September 6, 2013 by FionordeQuester

[FionordeQuester]

Dondon, before you respond, I've been thinking about this more, and now, I think I remember that Israel's future righteous kings, dudes like Hezekiah and Jehoiachin, pretty much stopped implementing the practice of polygamy entirely, settling for only one wife instead. I've gotta get to bed though, so I can't look that up just yet, alright? Thanks for your consideration!

[dondon151]

the god in the old testament was very willing to smite the israelites at any hint of disobedience. i cannot reconcile this with the opposing notion that you suggested, which is that god more or less appeased the base human desires of the israelite kings. the suggestion that he is bipolar doesn't rest any more easily with me than the default conclusion that the old testament god is a wicked entity with no reasonable moral compass.

this diversion into polygamy and harem-taking is not in my interest, nor do i see its relevance to the topic that you and i have been discussing, which is that the bible is no basis for contemporary moral authority (which does tie in to religion and natural disasters). i can offer up far worse than polygamy and harem-taking, which themselves are comparatively benign. and while it is true that the ancient israelites were not very progressive, to say the least, when it came to women's rights, or slavery, or ethnic cleansing, it is very perplexing to me that god could not issue, for example, (at least) three more commandments to moses in order to shape the israelites into a shining beacon of morality for all of humanity to follow.

i am still waiting for you to address the previously bolded excerpt.

Edited September 6, 2013 by dondon151

[Hash Jar]

Religious debates are fun, lol. We are arguing scripture now.

I'm sorry for deviating on my post. I meant to argue that since god has condoned rape before and that he condones the total control of the lives that we create, I don't find it that weird to think that he would cause natural disasters.

[Chiki]

'Belief in religion' is an oxymoron. Religion is a process that either happens or it doesn't. Dondon's understanding of 'dogma' is appallingly superficial and stereotypical to the extreme - I expected better of you.

Anyway, this has turned into the same pointless, boring debate that's the probably the only kind of religious debate the major bulk of internet is capable of. You folks enjoy yourselves if you can while I'll do something more constructive.

I honestly went into fits of laughter when I read this post. Part of the reason being how sensitive you are, and the other because your posts on this thread make very little sense.

Why does "religion either happen or not?"

1. The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in another: My belief in you is as strong as ever.

Edited September 6, 2013 by Celes

[FionordeQuester]

i am still waiting for you to address the previously bolded excerpt.

You mean Gibeah's crime? I already did. I said that just because the Bible talked about the Levite's actions in a dispassionate way does not mean it condoned his actions, as you seemed to imply.

the god in the old testament was very willing to smite the israelites at any hint of disobedience. i cannot reconcile this with the opposing notion that you suggested, which is that god more or less appeased the base human desires of the israelite kings.

Well, the guy can tell what's in a human's heart, right? Seems to me like he's qualified to do whatever judging was needed. As for "appeasing the base desires", actually, it seems I misremembered that passage. All God said was that he "would have given him much more", without any mention of wives being part of the package (although he did say he gave Saul's wives to David). So it looks like David was indeed spiting God with his antics...

Anyways, the only reason I went on that tangent was because I used Solomon's activities as an example of the Bible talking dispassionately about something while still obviously not condoning it...and then I had to bring this up in order to address what I thought would be a future argument like "yeah, well if God was so against multiplying wives, why did he offer them to David?". I wasn't trying to divert the thread.

Edited September 6, 2013 by FionordeQuester

[dondon151]

of course i know how contradictory that is. that is the point!

and suppose that these israelite armies did kill all of the men (which in itself is genocidal and absolutely abhorrent) and keep all of the virgin girls. what do you supposed they did with the virgin girls? give them land? suffrage? basic rights? i mean, consider this passage from numbers:

"Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man."

no, really, what could you possibly think they did?

[FionordeQuester]

of course i know how contradictory that is. that is the point!

and suppose that these israelite armies did kill all of the men (which in itself is genocidal and absolutely abhorrent) and keep all of the virgin girls. what do you supposed they did with the virgin girls? give them land? suffrage? basic rights? i mean, consider this passage from numbers:

"Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man."

no, really, what could you possibly think they did?

Ah, I see. Sorry for missing that!

Well, alright then, no, they did not rape the virgin girls. Because...

1) That would be horribly evil, and God probably would have judged them for that.

2) Where in the world were those girl's supposed to go after having all of their families killed for their evil? Not taking them in, whether they would've gotten land or not, would've been cruel beyond words.

3) Giving them "land, suffrage, and basic rights" would've been unfair to the Israelite women (and obviously there would've been a lot of social upheaval from giving those rights to all women, not exactly something you want to have when you're still a nation struggling to survive).

4) Most of the men of military age would most likely have been married by then, so rape would've also counted as adultery.

5) Five, "saving them for yourselves" probably just means that they took the girl's, raised them, and arranged for their sons to marry them.

6) Do you know how expensive it would've been to try to cloth and feed multiple wives? Concubines and harem's weren't something that the average person could really do, so even if the soldier's did want to do that, they wouldn't have had the money to.

To say they raped those girl's is, in my mind, reading too much into it.

Edited September 6, 2013 by FionordeQuester

[euklyd]

1) That would be horribly evil, and God probably would have judged them for that.

2) Where in the world were those girl's supposed to go after having all of their families killed for their evil? Not taking them in, whether they would've gotten land or not, would've been cruel beyond words.

So, it's not okay that they rape the girls, but killing every single man, boy, and non-virgin woman is totally acceptable?

And leaving the girls to die is cruel beyond words, but murdering their families, including all of the boys who are just as young as they are is what, exactly?

3) Giving them "land, suffrage, and basic rights" would've been unfair to the Israelite women (and obviously there would've been a lot of social upheaval from giving those rights to all women, not exactly something you want to have when you're still a nation struggling to survive).

I agree, it would be very unfair, especially since the Israelite women had neither land, suffrage, nor basic rights.

4) Most of the men of military age would most likely have been married by then, so rape would've also counted as adultery.

5) Five, "saving them for yourselves" probably just means that they took the girl's, raised them, and arranged for their sons to marry them.

6) Do you know how expensive it would've been to try to cloth and feed multiple wives? Concubines and harem's weren't something that the average person could really do, so even if the soldier's did want to do that, they wouldn't have had the money to.

To say they raped those girl's is, in my mind, reading too much into it.

Actually, Deuteronomy 20:10-14, 21:10-14, and Judges 21:10-24 have something to say to you.

[spoiler=Deuteronomy 20:10-14]¹⁰ When you draw near to a town to fight against it, offer it terms of peace. ¹¹ If it accepts your terms of peace and surrenders to you, then all the people in it shall serve you at forced labor. ¹² If it does not submit to you peacefully, but makes war against you, then you shall besiege it; ¹³ and when the Lord your God gives it into your hand, you shall put all its males to the sword.¹⁴ You may, however, take as your booty the women, the children, livestock, and everything else in the town, all its spoil. You may enjoy the spoil of your enemies, which the Lord your God has given you.

When girls and women are referred to as "spoil" then there's not much ambiguity.

[spoiler=Deuteronomy 21:10-14]¹⁰ When you go out to war against your enemies, and the Lord your God hands them over to you and you take them captive,¹¹ suppose you see among the captives a beautiful woman whom you desire and want to marry, ¹² and so you bring her home to your house: she shall shave her head, pare her nails, ¹³ discard her captive’s garb, and shall remain in your house a full month, mourning for her father and mother; after that you may go in to her and be her husband, and she shall be your wife. ¹⁴ But if you are not satisfied with her, you shall let her go free and not sell her for money. You must not treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her.

That's formalizing the process for making captured women into your wife. Seems like it does happen quite a bit, then.

This last one isn't a command from God, but it illustrates the mentality pretty well, IMO.

[spoiler=Judges 21:10-24]

¹⁰ So the congregation sent twelve thousand soldiers there and commanded them, “Go, put the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead to the sword, including the women and the little ones. ¹¹ This is what you shall do; every male and every woman that has lain with a male you shall devote to destruction.” ¹² And they found among the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead four hundred young virgins who had never slept with a man and brought them to the camp at Shiloh, which is in the land of Canaan.

¹³ Then the whole congregation sent word to the Benjaminites who were at the rock of Rimmon, and proclaimed peace to them. ¹⁴ Benjamin returned at that time; and they gave them the women whom they had saved alive of the women of Jabesh-gilead; but they did not suffice for them.

¹⁵ The people had compassion on Benjamin because the Lord had made a breach in the tribes of Israel. ¹⁶ So the elders of the congregation said, “What shall we do for wives for those who are left, since there are no women left in Benjamin?” ¹⁷ And they said, “There must be heirs for the survivors of Benjamin, in order that a tribe may not be blotted out from Israel. ¹⁸ Yet we cannot give any of our daughters to them as wives.” For the Israelites had sworn, “Cursed be anyone who gives a wife to Benjamin.” ¹⁹ So they said, “Look, the yearly festival of theLord is taking place at Shiloh, which is north of Bethel, on the east of the highway that goes up from Bethel to Shechem, and south of Lebonah.” ²⁰ And they instructed the Benjaminites, saying, “Go and lie in wait in the vineyards, ²¹ and watch; when the young women of Shiloh come out to dance in the dances, then come out of the vineyards and each of you carry off a wife for himself from the young women of Shiloh, and go to the land of Benjamin. ²² Then if their fathers or their brothers come to complain to us, we will say to them, ‘Be generous and allow us to have them; because we did not capture in battle a wife for each man. But neither did you incur guilt by giving your daughters to them.’” ²³ The Benjaminites did so; they took wives for each of them from the dancers whom they abducted. Then they went and returned to their territory, and rebuilt the towns, and lived in them. ²⁴ So the Israelites departed from there at that time by tribes and families, and they went out from there to their own territories.

Abduction, whether through outright war or "mere" kidnapping, seems to be treated as a perfectly acceptable way to find a wife, even it it's not God's express command.

To me, much of God's actions in the Old Testament can be explained only if you accept that God and His commands are exempt from our ideas of morality. Which is a common enough way to look at things, I guess. What I'm really trying to say is that God has done things that simply do not fit with our conceptions of morality, and that trying to justify His actions within our ethical standards for humans makes very little sense (I don't need to argue whether I think God gets a free pass, so I'll leave my opinion on that out of this).

Then again, I'm no expert, and this is just my 2¢.

Getting back (somewhat) to the original topic, my favorite explanation is that God allows bad things to happen so that humanity can mature on it's own, instead of relying on Him for everything. It's hard to grow up, either as an individual or a society, in the absence of adversity, IMO.

Edited September 6, 2013 by Euklyd

[FionordeQuester]

You know, you actually had me there for a little bit when you mentioned how God referred to the little ones, livestock, women, and all that as plunder. But, then I realized that you've debunked your own argument with this bolded part...

You must not treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her.

So it's ok to rape her, but it's not ok to treat her as a slave? It seems to me like that's what you would have to argue in order to support your point.

Then again, I'm no expert, and this is just my 2¢.

I don't mind. I remember saying this long ago, when we had a similar debate, but these sorts of arguments really do help me to get to know the Bible better, so I appreciate them, as well as the respect you've shown. Of course, that time, you were pretty irritated, but, oh well. I'm still thankful.

And leaving the girls to die is cruel beyond words, but murdering their families, including all of the boys who are just as young as they are is what, exactly?

The adults I don't see a problem with. It isn't exactly Genghis Khan type stuff we're talking when we're basically talking about a whole society of Joseph Stalin's and Ted Bundies. The young boys though...honestly, I don't quite know what to say about that. That's the one thing out of the entire Bible that I still haven't found an answer that I liked.

I mean, I think that the explanation I heard was that it would've caused all kinds of problems with inheritance laws (in those days, it was very important that men preserved their lineage by having children, lest their name be "blotted out"), and also, they wouldn't have had the room to accommodate the boys. Of course, if God could rain bread from the sky...the hunger argument doesn't really work. And God allowed them to take the children from previous conquests...

I don't know what to say about that one. All I can do is hunt for an explanation. If I can't find one...I guess I just have to trust that God had a good reason for it, and hope he explains it to me someday. May seem a bit naive, but when I've always been able to find a just reason for God's actions like 99% of the time...well, I'm not going to just suddenly lose faith because of one thing I'm confused on.

EDIT: Wait a minute though...don't boys generally have a higher heritability rate for genetic disorders than women do? There were probably a lot of diseases that were being spread due to sexual immorality, which may also explain why God told them to only let the virgin's live in some cities.

Edited September 6, 2013 by FionordeQuester

[dondon151]

What I'm really trying to say is that God has done things that simply do not fit with our conceptions of morality, and that trying to justify His actions within our ethical standards for humans makes very little sense (I don't need to argue whether I think God gets a free pass, so I'll leave my opinion on that out of this).

why do you believe that god's actions cannot be judged within mankind's ethical standards when it is so often argued that mankind's ethical standards are derived from god?

1) That would be horribly evil, and God probably would have judged them for that.

between the taking of the enemies' women as spoils of war and the wholesale slaughter of entire tribes of people, your supposition doesn't follow.

2) Where in the world were those girl's supposed to go after having all of their families killed for their evil? Not taking them in, whether they would've gotten land or not, would've been cruel beyond words.

the fact that you are unable to see the big picture of this scenario is amusing in a rather disturbing way. why didn't god just kill all of them? why did god save only the virgin women? what about the non-virgin women? what about the male children who had no means to defend themselves? what about the men, who presumably would have made for an excellent source of free labor? no, god reserved only the virgin women and condemned them to a fate worse than death. what's so important about being a virgin - a female virgin, to be exact - anyway? there is nothing special about them, biologically, aside from having a cherry to pop. god's prescription for females to reserve themselves for their husbands (or rapists) falls nothing short of misogyny.

the excerpt suggests that the virgin women were raped in every way without explicitly stating it. the diction of the bible itself has undergone numerous revisions over its history which have helped to obscure its original meaning, but to read that in any other way is delusional. you may as well say that winston's choice to give up julia in 1984 was independent of the threat of torture because orwell doesn't literally write "torture, therefore julia."

3) Giving them "land, suffrage, and basic rights" would've been unfair to the Israelite women (and obviously there would've been a lot of social upheaval from giving those rights to all women, not exactly something you want to have when you're still a nation struggling to survive).

why didn't god already decree these basic human rights?

and this following statement disturbed me the most:

The adults I don't see a problem with. It isn't exactly Genghis Khan type stuff we're talking when we're basically talking about a whole society of Joseph Stalin's and Ted Bundies. The young boys though...honestly, I don't quite know what to say about that. That's the one thing out of the entire Bible that I still haven't found an answer that I liked.

you justified genocide on the assumption that the people who were killed were totalitarian serial killer rapists. first of all, this assumption is just not true. what was wrong with these societies? they did not believe in the one true god. they harbored homosexuals (no longer a crime in the western world). they were somewhat xenophobic. they were unrepentant of their sin (although seeing as how gathering wood on a saturday is a sin, i wouldn't take this one too seriously). there is absolutely nothing to suggest that these people on a whole were terrible on the same order as contemporary villains. second, the fact that you justified genocide of any kind is extremely disturbing! only with the approval of the word of god can any reasonable person be willing to say such a thing.

related article: http://ge.tt/1YWlK2q/v/0?c

tl;dr version for those who aren't familiar with the article: israeli schoolchildren were presented with an account of the genocide of jericho from the book of joshua and/or a similar account with all of the jews replaced by chinese people. of those surveyed, 60% thought that joshua's actions were justified, while only 7% thought that the analogous "general lin's" actions were justified.

Edited September 6, 2013 by dondon151