- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Girl Boss throws her baby out of window
Posted on 7/9/24 at 7:56 am to FooManChoo
Posted on 7/9/24 at 7:56 am to FooManChoo
quote:
The alternative was to be killed as part of the consequence of war, especially given their idolatry and perverse customs like incest, beastiality, and child sacrifice. Being given life in exchange for marriage was a good deal for women back then, and arranged marriages were not uncommon.
H
O
L
Y
S
H
I
T
Ignoring your crazy false dichotomy, what part of "keep alive for yourselves" implies these girls were given any choice in the matter?
quote:
We need to be careful not to anachronize 21st century feminism back into history. Not marrying for love didn’t mean it was rape.
Even if we add in that illusion of choice, it doesn't change anything. "Your honor, I didn't rape her. I just told her I'd kill her I'd she chose not to sleep with me
It was completely voluntary." quote:
You are assuming rape when that assumption is unnecessary. A physical exam could determine virginity without first having sex.
Bible verse for this hypothetical "physical exam"?
quote:
Who knows?
Again, the Bible states only one way, at least that I'm aware of, to determine a woman's virginity. There's no reason to make assumptions past that.
quote:
The example you provided doesn’t satisfy my demand because it doesn’t state that rape occurred.
In order for you to take this stance, you have to believe that every single one of these young virgin girls willingly dove straight into bed with the men who just killed their fathers, mothers, brothers, and older sisters.
You believe some crazy shite, so it won't be that surprising. But is that what you believe?
This post was edited on 7/9/24 at 8:00 am
1
Posted on 7/9/24 at 8:25 am to MemphisGuy
quote:
he puts an awful lot of effort into not believing something he doesn't believe in.
Because modern man is totally fricked up.
90% of them walk around with nothing but their next meal on their mind.
Posted on 7/9/24 at 9:33 pm to Azkiger
quote:What false dichotomy? That was the pattern in the Old Testament. Either destroy the whole enemy nation or marry some of the women to intersperse with the rest of Israel. There wasn't really an option to let them go wander around without husbands or fathers/brothers to take care of them.
Ignoring your crazy false dichotomy
quote:Technically, even the threat of death provides a choice: there's the choice of life as a wife and death. What you seem to be doing is saying that the lack of a 3rd choice (perhaps their own autonomous life apart from Israel) means there isn't a choice but that's not true. They had the choice of death or being taken care of as wives.
what part of "keep alive for yourselves" implies these girls were given any choice in the matter?
Considering their guilt as a society that were raised from birth to sacrifice children to their gods and other terrible sins that warranted their destruction in the first place, they could have been killed out-right without a choice of life within the community of God's people.
Just because you don't like the choices doesn't mean there weren't any, and the women were not taken as "sex slaves" but as wives, which was the common practice in Israel.
quote:Again, being made a wife was not the same thing as being raped at knife point behind a tree. You should also remember the context of war. These people were destined for utter destruction due to their societal guilt as enemies of God. It would have been just for them to have been killed with the rest of the people, so being given the option of life as a wife instead of death would have actually been a mercy.
Even if we add in that illusion of choice, it doesn't change anything.
"Your honor, I didn't rape her. I just told her I'd kill her I'd she chose not to sleep with me It was completely voluntary."
quote:None is needed. It was a common practice in many ancient societies across the world including ancient Greco-Roman societies. I'm not saying it had to be a method used, but it was one that could have been used. Why that is important is because with multiple "tests" of virginity being possible, you are the one who has to prove that sleeping with a woman before marriage (rape, as you're asserting) was what happening instead of some other test.
Bible verse for this hypothetical "physical exam"?
Given the cultures of the tribes of Canaan and more broadly throughout the world during that time, it would have been fairly safe to say that a teenage girl who didn't have a husband was likely a virgin. Virginal purity was highly valued, both culturally and religiously in most ME societies. They weren't as promiscuous as our society is today, where it's more common for young women to not be virgins than to be virgins. Prostitutes existed but non-prostitutes would have likely been chaste. Israelite soldiers would have had high confidence of virginity in their chosen bride if they were teens and unmarried.
quote:That particular test occurred after marriage. What you were proposing is that the Israelite soldiers raped women first to determine if they were virgins and then married them later if they were. That's not how the sheet/cloak test worked even in normal marriage circumstances.
Again, the Bible states only one way, at least that I'm aware of, to determine a woman's virginity. There's no reason to make assumptions past that.
quote:It wasn't diving straight into bed. It was diving into marriage, where the men were to provide for the women as their wives and where they would be valued as mothers to Israelite children.
In order for you to take this stance, you have to believe that every single one of these young virgin girls willingly dove straight into bed with the men who just killed their fathers, mothers, brothers, and older sisters.
You're still anachronizing modern concepts of marriage-for-love back into ancient cultures where that wasn't as important, or at least expected. I'm sure those women were not excited and happy about their situations, but they must have realized the value of being chosen as wives (and mothers) rather than killed as part of warfare. Given the culture of tribal warfare at that time, this was a fairly common practice.
This post was edited on 7/10/24 at 12:54 am
Posted on 7/9/24 at 11:33 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
What false dichotomy?
Death or forced marriage.
quote:
Technically, even the threat of death provides a choice...
Christian apologetics at work. Telling a woman to have sex with you or you'll slit her throat is, technically, giving her a choice in the matter. This doesn't even work because no such concessions were provided for in the text. There was no, "let them decide". It was kill the women who have known a man, and keep the virgins for yourselves.
quote:
Again, being made a wife was not the same thing as being raped at knife point behind a tree.
"If you aren't holding a knife, it's not rape!"
- Foo
quote:
None is needed.
Yeah, why would you need to back up your claims?
quote:
That particular test occurred after marriage.
Irrelevant. It was the only way to determine virginity that the Bible mentions. You're suggesting they knew of another, more 21st-century acceptable way. Find the Bible verse then we'll talk.
quote:
It wasn't diving straight into bed.
Unless you can find a Bible verse showing an alternative way to determine virginity, you can't say otherwise; Sorry.
quote:
You're still anachronizing modern concepts of marriage-for-love back into ancient cultures...
When did I ever type the word "love"?
There's a big difference between marrying someone you love, and being forced to marry and have sex with the man who killed your family.
Posted on 7/10/24 at 1:14 am to Azkiger
quote:Explain the false dichotomy based on the biblical narrative.
Death or forced marriage.
quote:That's more of a logical matter than a apologetical one. A choice exists whether you like it or not. That's all I'm saying.
Christian apologetics at work. Telling a woman to have sex with you or you'll slit her throat is, technically, giving her a choice in the matter.
quote:Yes, as wives. The women who didn't want to be wives could have killed themselves or protested to the point of death. The options were get married or die. Considering they deserved death, even having marriage as an option was a mercy.
This doesn't even work because no such concessions were provided for in the text. There was no, "let them decide". It was kill the women who have known a man, and keep the virgins for yourselves.
quote:I can tell you're getting frustrated. You're starting to abandon argumentation.
"If you aren't holding a knife, it's not rape!"
- Foo
quote:You're the one trying to assert a case for rape without providing a reason why rape must exist in the narrative. It's like explaining away an alleged contradiction: if there is at least one plausible alternative that explains away a contradiction, you can't claim a necessary contradiction. The same is true in this case. If there were ways the people of Israel could determine virginity in their minds without actually engaging in intercourse, then your claim of rape to prove virginity before marriage becomes unsubstantiated. You would have to assume rape to conclude rape otherwise.
Yeah, why would you need to back up your claims?
quote:It's not irrelevant at all and it's not a "more 21st-century acceptable way". Checking the hymen has been a practice that has existed for thousands of years, from Greece to the Orient. I'm merely providing one plausible alternative to your assumption of rape prior to marriage.
Irrelevant. It was the only way to determine virginity that the Bible mentions. You're suggesting they knew of another, more 21st-century acceptable way. Find the Bible verse then we'll talk.
The reason why the biblical test you are citing occurring after marriage is relevant is precisely because the practice doesn't align with what you are claiming. You are claiming that Israelite soldiers had sex with women to first see if they were virgins and then married them if they were "bleeders" rather than the other way around. The timing is critical to your argument. You can't turn around and say the timing doesn't matter.
Let me remind you of what you said initially: "Sounds like these women were raped. And the soldiers lucky enough to find a bleeder got to keep her for himself."
Again, the test you cited was for after the marriage had occurred, not as a way to find a marriage partner.
quote:Certainly I can. The only 'test' you are using to prove your assertion wasn't even used in the way you are claiming. On this point, the Bible is actually silent. I'm providing historical argumentation in the face of that silence to say why your case for "rape" is not proven. Since you're the one who made the positive claim of rape, you're the one who needs to prove it. Based on the biblical narrative, that can't be done.
Unless you can find a Bible verse showing an alternative way to determine virginity, you can't say otherwise; Sorry.
quote:"Love" was used to describe the modern notion of marriage through a positive emotional bond. Today, in the West, people almost exclusively get married because they want to marry the specific person they marry. That wasn't typical in times past, where marriages existed for more practical reasons. Even rulers of nations would marry in centuries past to form alliances, sometimes even between enemy nations.
When did I ever type the word "love"?
There's a big difference between marrying someone you love, and being forced to marry and have sex with the man who killed your family.
My point was that emotions had nothing to do with marriage a lot of the time, whether positive (love) or negative (hate). Arranged marriages took all emotion out of it and people got married out of duty. This incident in the Bible would have been more in alignment with duty and pragmatic survival than anything to do with emotion.
Posted on 7/10/24 at 7:39 am to FooManChoo
Question.
If a woman is kidnapped and raped, did she choose to be raped since she didn't kill herself or resist enough to provoke the rapist to kill her?
If a woman is kidnapped and raped, did she choose to be raped since she didn't kill herself or resist enough to provoke the rapist to kill her?
Posted on 7/10/24 at 7:41 am to Jrv2damac
quote:
7.5 years for manslaughter
If this doesn't get you the death penalty what will?
Posted on 7/10/24 at 6:47 pm to Azkiger
quote:
Question.
If a woman is kidnapped and raped, did she choose to be raped since she didn't kill herself or resist enough to provoke the rapist to kill her?
Well?
Posted on 7/10/24 at 10:37 pm to Azkiger
quote:Ever heard that saying, "patience is a virtue"? I'm not on here all day and when I am, I'm usually on my phone and it's harder to provide more thoughtful responses.quote:
Question.
If a woman is kidnapped and raped, did she choose to be raped since she didn't kill herself or resist enough to provoke the rapist to kill her?
Well?
To answer your question: given the information in the hypothetical, no, the woman didn't choose to be raped in that situation.
I already explained how the situation of spoils-of-war marriage wasn't the same thing as a woman being taken behind a tree at knife point and raped, though.
Posted on 7/10/24 at 10:52 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
To answer your question: given the information in the hypothetical, no, the woman didn't choose to be raped in that situation.
Why?
Your logic says she did have other choices. Since she had other choices, and didn't pick any of them, then she chose the option of sleeping with her kidnapper.
quote:
I already explained how the situation of spoils-of-war marriage wasn't the same thing as a woman being taken behind a tree at knife point and raped, though.
Asserted, not explained.
The assumed marriage would have essentially been knife point. You yourself said they had at least one other choice (death).
Posted on 7/11/24 at 12:58 pm to Azkiger
quote:You gave a narrow hypothetical unrelated to the context of the biblical narrative, missing important differences.
Why?
Your logic says she did have other choices. Since she had other choices, and didn't pick any of them, then she chose the option of sleeping with her kidnapper.
It's also not the existence of other choices, necessarily, that determines whether rape occurs or not. I didn't say that refusing to choose death over rape means that a woman wasn't raped, which is what you're implying by your hypothetical.
Marriage is not rape. You're equating the entering into a binding relationship where sex and child rearing in addition to a commitment to protection and provision is an expectation of that relationship with a non-relationship where satisfying the sexual desires of one person is the expectation at the expense of the other person, with no care given to the well-being of the victim.
So no, the hypothetical is not a 1-to-1 analogy of the biblical narrative and therefore me saying the woman in your hypothetical was not choosing "rape" is not a logical inconsistency. The nature of the relationships and the actions are fundamentally different, which is why I said initially that the marriages were not the same thing as taking a woman behind a tree at knife-point to rape her, which is what you're trying to show that it was.
You gave a hypothetical in an attempt to prove your point so let me provide one: Imagine a situation where a woman was on death row for her involvement in a heinous crime and a man with some political sway was able to procure for her a pardon on the condition of her entering into a marriage relationship with him. The woman can choose the death that she is owed or a relationship that means not just life, but a "normal" life at that, even if she's not in love with the person offering it. That's more like what was happening than your hypothetical of an innocent woman being kidnapped and forcibly raped.
quote:I have explained it, and have done so again. As stated previously, you have the burden of proof to support your claim that God commanded or condoned rape. You have yet to show that event of taking wives from a condemned-to-die group of people was rape, nor that the test for virginity that was used after a marriage took place was used prior to marriage.
Asserted, not explained.
quote:The issue is that the knife was already there before the marriage option due to their crimes as a tribe or nation. The option of marriage was offered as potential way out of their death sentence. That's very different than an innocent individual being taken against their will and placed into a situation of having to choose rape or death. And as explained, the very relationship of marriage was fundamentally different than that of a rapist to his victim.
The assumed marriage would have essentially been knife point. You yourself said they had at least one other choice (death)
Posted on 7/11/24 at 5:17 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
Marriage is not rape
It is if it's "marry me or be killed like the rest of your family".
Just because you intimidate a young girl in agreeing to your religions vows doesn't mean the sex that follows is consensual.
Say the kidnapper I referenced threatened the woman he abducted with death unless she marry him before he threatens her with death unless she has sex with him?
He'd want to do that so people like you wouldn't think him a monster, of course.
quote:
That's very different than an innocent individual...
No, they're both just as innocent.
Besides, you're argument now is that it's alright to threaten young girls into marriage and sex if their parents do something my god doesn't like.
At the end of the day you're still threatening a young girl into marriage and sex.
You'd have a point if they were just killed (because you believe in shared guilt), but they weren't. They were raped.
Posted on 7/11/24 at 9:27 pm to Azkiger
You haven't proven your case that the biblical narrative teaches that God commands or condones rape. Your assumptions have not been validated. You're now just saying you think it's bad that God would hold someone accountable for their parents or the culture they lived in. You don't have a true sense of sin nor God's holiness so you're going to call God a big meany no matter what.
I noticed you didn't address my own version of a hypothetical where a woman is sentenced to death and is offered life in exchange for a marriage relationship. You want to force a wrong view of the situation into the text so that you can win an emotional argument. If you want to say you don't like what happened, that's fine, but don't say it was rape and justify it with faulty reasoning like the bloody sheet that doesn't apply.
I noticed you didn't address my own version of a hypothetical where a woman is sentenced to death and is offered life in exchange for a marriage relationship. You want to force a wrong view of the situation into the text so that you can win an emotional argument. If you want to say you don't like what happened, that's fine, but don't say it was rape and justify it with faulty reasoning like the bloody sheet that doesn't apply.
Posted on 7/11/24 at 11:45 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
You haven't proven your case that the biblical narrative teaches that God commands or condones rape.
What else do you call threatening young girls, whom you've just slaughtered their families, into marriage and sex?
quote:
Your assumptions have not been validated.
You're the one assuming marriages were involved.
I'm giving that to you and you're still failing.
quote:
You're now just saying you think it's bad that God would hold someone accountable for their parents or the culture they lived in. You don't have a true sense of sin nor God's holiness so you're going to call God a big meany no matter what.
I guess your God doesn't either, surprise, surprise...
"The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him."
- Ezekiel 18:19-23
That's probably why you find yourself grasping at straws while trying to defend rape.
quote:
I noticed you didn't address my own version of a hypothetical where a woman is sentenced to death and is offered life in exchange for a marriage relationship.
At least you're finally acknowledging that the marriage was a punishment.
Posted on 7/12/24 at 10:08 pm to Azkiger
quote:Again, your perspective on it is incorrect. The threat of death was already there because of their association to an idolatrous and perverted tribe or nation. Death is what is coming their way by default. It's the offer of marriage that gives them a way out.
What else do you call threatening young girls, whom you've just slaughtered their families, into marriage and sex?
Again, you keep making it seem like they were completely innocent. God judged them guilty as sinners deserving death, as we all deserve, and therefore they were not innocent. Their sins and association to a sinful tribe and nation warranted the death penalty and that's what they would have gotten if the offer of marriage was not provided.
Within that context, the offer of marriage wasn't a threat but a gracious offer of life.
quote:Marriage was the common practice and even the intent of the language of them being virgins. There's even a short passage in Deuteronomy 21 that describes this very thing:
You're the one assuming marriages were involved.
I'm giving that to you and you're still failing.
"10 “When you go out to war against your enemies, and the Lord your God gives them into your hand and you take them captive, 11 and you see among the captives a beautiful woman, and you desire to take her to be your wife, 12 and you bring her home to your house, she shall shave her head and pare her nails. 13 And she shall take off the clothes in which she was captured and shall remain in your house and lament her father and her mother a full month. After that you may go in to her and be her husband, and she shall be your wife. 14 But if you no longer delight in her, you shall let her go where she wants. But you shall not sell her for money, nor shall you treat her as a slave, since you have humiliated her."
This describes how a soldier is take a captive wife. She is given a month to grieve for the loss of her family before she is to made a wife. Sex also is not given here until marriage. That means it certainly wasn't rape like you describe, where a woman was dragged off, had a ring forced on her finger, and then violated on the spot. The month-long wait ensured that the marriage was because the man wanted to actually marry her. If he changed his mind about marriage during that time, he had to let her go.
quote:Did you even read the first 7 words you quoted, or the last 9? Is there a soul that has not sinned? The wickedness of the wicked shall be upon them, as the passage ends with. There was no innocent person in that tribe because all have sinned (Rom. 3:23).
I guess your God doesn't either, surprise, surprise...
"The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him."
- Ezekiel 18:19-23
That's probably why you find yourself grasping at straws while trying to defend rape.
And exegesis of the Bible using its own context is not grasping at straws. That's you projecting because you started this discussion by misapplying the sheet/cloak purity test and haven't recovered from it. You may want the Bible to teach that rape is OK, but that's not what it actually teaches.
quote:
At least you're finally acknowledging that the marriage was a punishment.
what? Is that how understood what I said? You might want to hold that straw-grasping mirror up in front of yourself because you seem to be either twisting my words or woefully misunderstanding them. I'm saying the opposite of what you claimed: that marriage was a mercy, not a punishment.
Posted on 7/13/24 at 1:47 am to Jrv2damac
quote:
It’s like Germany has to go soft on literally anything since World War II
Let someone say something "hateful" about the rapeugees and you'll see how hard Germany can be...
Posted on 7/13/24 at 1:53 am to RebelExpress38
Posted on 7/13/24 at 8:11 am to FooManChoo
quote:
Again, your perspective on it is incorrect. The threat of death was already there because of their association to an idolatrous and perverted tribe or nation. Death is what is coming their way by default. It's the offer of marriage that gives them a way out.
Again, you keep making it seem like they were completely innocent. God judged them guilty as sinners deserving death, as we all deserve, and therefore they were not innocent. Their sins and association to a sinful tribe and nation warranted the death penalty and that's what they would have gotten if the offer of marriage was not provided.
Within that context, the offer of marriage wasn't a threat but a gracious offer of life.
All those words and no answer.
I'll ask again: What else do you call threatening young girls, whom you've just slaughtered their families, into marriage and sex?
quote:
Deuteronomy 21
You know what's missing from that? Consent. Which turns out to be the key element to marriage.
quote:
Did you even read the first 7 words you quoted, or the last 9? Is there a soul that has not sinned?
So why didn't the Hebrews kill themselves as well? All have sinned, after all.
quote:
I'm saying the opposite of what you claimed: that marriage was a mercy, not a punishment.
Mercy is the lessening or canceling punishment.
A court doesn't give you something positive in leu of a punishment. You either get less punishment or no punishment at all. Since they're receiving something, it's a punishment.
But please, keep trying to argue threatened young girls into marrying the men who killed their family isn't punishment
This post was edited on 7/13/24 at 8:12 am
Posted on 7/13/24 at 9:46 am to Azkiger
quote:You asked a false question because marriage wasn’t a threat. The threat of death was there before the war started and that’s the threat that existed. Marriage wasn’t a threat but an opportunity for life. So when you try to get me to agree that they were threatened into marriage, you are not accurately depicting the situation.
All those words and no answer.
I'll ask again: What else do you call threatening young girls, whom you've just slaughtered their families, into marriage and sex?
quote:Some form of consent is implied when the word “marriage” is used, especially when it is contrasted with the word “slave” later on in the passage. This passage clearly states that the author distinguishes between a wife and a slave.
You know what's missing from that? Consent. Which turns out to be the key element to marriage.
This is why I referenced arranged marriages several posts ago. There is consent to marry out of duty or provision even if there is no initial desire for love or affection. If these women are on death row awaiting execution and are offered a reprieve in order to become wives, accepting the option is consent on at least some level. It may be more of an intellectual consent compared to an emotional one, but it is there.
And like the text says, she’s living in the man’s house for a month with plenty of opportunity to kill him or herself and escape, but she’s not being held as a slave but as a wife-to-be. Her lament is over her father and mother, not for herself, like Jepthah’s daughter.
You might disagree with this practice of taking wives from conquered tribes and nations just like you might disagree with arranged marriages where there is no emotional consent, but like I said, marriage is fundamentally different as a relationship than a rapist to his victim.
quote:Suicide is also a sin. My point is that all carry the guilt of sin and therefore all could be justly commanded to be killed by God if He so chose to do so, but He didn’t. I was talking to the notion that the teenage girls as well as everyone else in that wicked tribe were considered guilty in God’s eyes for their sin and therefore He has the prerogative to command their execution. They weren’t innocent and being judged merely for the sins of their fathers and mothers.
So why didn't the Hebrews kill themselves as well? All have sinned, after all.
quote:No, in the biblical sense, mercy is not getting the punishment you deserve. Salvation through Jesus Christ is offered to us as a mercy because we deserve everlasting damnation.
Mercy is the lessening or canceling punishment.
A court doesn't give you something positive in leu of a punishment. You either get less punishment or no punishment at all. Since they're receiving something, it's a punishment.
If the young women deserved death and they were instead offered life, that’s a mercy, even if you personally don’t see it that way.
quote:You continue to mischaracterize what happened. I understand why, because the truth isn’t kind to your position.
But please, keep trying to argue threatened young girls into marrying the men who killed their family isn't punishment
I’ll add one more thing: during those days, a woman’s greatest purpose and honor was to be a wife and mother. In Israel, it was shameful—or at least a stigma—to be an older single woman without ever having been married. It was seen as a curse to be a married woman who could not have children. And even beyond cultural shame and stigma, it was pragmatically good for the woman to be married and have children, for her own care and provision. Even the tribes and nations of the Cannanites had that mentality. It was an honor to sacrifice your child to Baal or Molech because children were prized and therefore mothers were prized. If you weren’t married and didn’t have children, there was no guarantee that you would be able to be cared for.m and you were considered a burden on whatever family you did have.
So whether or not the women kept alive from war were thrilled about the prospect of marriage in the moment, they knew culturally that to be married and eventually have children was a good thing for themselves; it wasn’t merely a slightly better punishment than being killed, like you are arguing.
Posted on 7/13/24 at 11:27 am to FooManChoo
quote:
You asked a false question because marriage wasn’t a threat.
No, the threat would be death for not accepting marriage. That's not debatable. If promising death for not doing something isn't a threat, nothing is.
quote:
Some form of consent is implied when the word “marriage” is used, especially when it is contrasted with the word “slave” later on in the passage.
Not really, considering "dishonored" was the justification used to avoid slavery (sex slavery, for women). That's why the non-virgins were killed, they're worthless. Once a Hebrew slept with the young girl, she was instantly useless to any other man. If that man doesn't want her, no other man would.
quote:
Suicide is also a sin.
Have a massive free-for-all. Treat themselves just like the pagans. Everyone is sinful and must be punished, right?
quote:
If the young women deserved death and they were instead offered life, that’s a mercy, even if you personally don’t see it that way.
A life where they were married to the men who murdered their families.
P-u-n-i-s-h-m-e-n-t.
quote:
You continue to mischaracterize what happened.
Which elements of that statement ("But please, keep trying to argue threatened young girls into marrying the men who killed their family isn't punishment.") aren't present in the Biblical verse quoted, or parts of an argument you presented?
1.) These were young girls.
2.) Hebrews had killed their family.
3.) They had to choose between death and marriage.
4.) You're arguing that they weren't threatened.
Every. Single. Thing. I. Said. Is. Correct.
I'm sorry you don't like how it sounds. I don't either.
quote:
I’ll add one more thing: during those days, a woman’s greatest purpose and honor was to be a wife and mother. In Israel, it was shameful—or at least a stigma—to be an older single woman without ever having been married. It was seen as a curse to be a married woman who could not have children. And even beyond cultural shame and stigma, it was pragmatically good for the woman to be married and have children, for her own care and provision. Even the tribes and nations of the Cannanites had that mentality. It was an honor to sacrifice your child to Baal or Molech because children were prized and therefore mothers were prized. If you weren’t married and didn’t have children, there was no guarantee that you would be able to be cared for.m and you were considered a burden on whatever family you did have.
If that were the case you wouldn't need to threaten them with death. Let them join your community and they'll find a spouse on their own when they're ready.
Page 9 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News