War Crimes in the Bible

@sonship said
I am just not sure I stand by words previously written about some technical aspect of the treatment of the Midianinite virgins. I do not say referring to them is not allowed.

I just don't HAVE to give the impression they are still my present thoughts about something.

Why did you feel you had to delete the post? Why not simply admit you'd had misgivings ~ a few hours later ~ about what you had posted?

@sonship said

In an Atheistic likely materialistic universe what is the real meaning of morality? Rape then is not REALLY wrong. Maybe just unconventional.

I think by denying an Ultimate Moral Governor you borrow from the seriousness of Gods kingship but have no replacement other than fleeting opinion.

If man is the measure of all things, which man?

Now, I would like to continue. But I cannot and must stop writing at this moment for the rest of the day probably.

In an atheist universe, rape is still wrong sonship. We don't need a deity to tell us that. Morality (like God) is a human construct. It is not set by one God, or one man.

@Ghost-of-a-Duke

In an atheist universe, rape is still wrong sonship. We don't need a deity to tell us that. Morality (like God) is a human construct. It is not set by one God, or one man.

Yes, as an atheist you also believe rape is wrong.
You do not have to believe in God in order to be made in the image of God - (Gen. 1:26).

An atheist is made in the image of God as well as a theist. So all people are made in the image of God and have by design a moral conscience. It was placed there by a Moral Creator.

But I have a reason for its wrongness based in the innate character of our designer God. He has installed a breaking system in human beings to at least inform us when we are going against the What Ought To Be of life.

You've got it too even though you are an atheist.

What is your real ground for saying it is wrong?
I don't think you have a solid basis.
Bad atoms?
Not conducive to evolutionary preservation of the species?
That is not actually WRONG, just not efficient.

Like Atheist Richard Dawkins, we live in a blind pitiless universe and we are all just dancing to our DNA.

I suppose he just doesn't care for the particular dance of raping people. Other than that - Too Bad.

@sonship said
An atheist is made in the image of God as well as a theist. So all people are made in the image of God and have by design a moral conscience.

I believe this perspective has some traction. It is one of the things that results in me being an agnostic atheist and prevents me from being an 'explicit atheist'.

But I don't think this perspective is a strong or credible reason to subscribe to any particular mundane religion nor to buy into ancient Hebrew claims about a "revelation" made exclusively to them or to buy into the claims that Christians make about themselves and their God.

Nor does the assertion that "all people are made in the image of God and have by design a moral conscience" strike me as evidence of there being an afterlife.

I don't think that what the Hebrews did to the Midianites in order to demonize them, kill them all, and take their land is legitimized by them believing they were made in the image of God and have by design a moral conscience and writing an account of their actions in which they claimed their invasion and occupation of Canaan was something their God told them to do.

@fmf said
I don't think that what the Hebrews did to the Midianites in order to demonize them, kill them all, and take their land is legitimized by them believing they were made in the image of God and have by design a moral conscience and writing an account of their actions in which they claimed their invasion and occupation of Canaan was something their God told them to do.

That last paragraph was a wee bit opaque due to missing punctuation and words. Here it is again:

I don't think that what the Hebrews did to the Midianites in order to demonize them, kill them all, and take their land is legitimized...

[1] by them believing they were made in the image of God and have by design a moral conscience, and

[2] by them writing an account of their actions in which they claimed their invasion and occupation of Canaan was something their God told them to do.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
In an atheist universe, rape is still wrong sonship. We don't need a deity to tell us that. Morality (like God) is a human construct. It is not set by one God, or one man.

This isn't actually confronting the position at all, and it is a misunderstanding of the Christian perspective on morality...

First, the position comes down to the notion that there is no objective morality in an atheist universe. There is no real means for saying that someone who accepts that they live and die by the sowrd to beg them to change their perspective.

If someone consistently says "We raid the tribe over the hill to take their women; they raid us to take our women. This is the way of the world!", how can you really persuade them that they are wrong? From a materialist perspective, there really is no means, because if someone is logically consistent (though morally repugnant), there isn't really a means to counter them.

This all goes back to the concept of value judgments.

Another interesting scenario: what about a pure egotist who doesn't claim to make any value judgments and admits his actions are arbitrary and egotistical... There'd really be no way to judge anyone at that point.

(2) Christian morality has a lot of internal metaphysical issues. You are right to sort of point this out...

On the one hand, we have the issue of saying something is morally right because God said it is right is actually a legitimate standard in a philosophical way, and only becomes questionable when we start wondering whether God can be a lunatic, right.

But this is sort of an abuse of the framework & logic employed by the theists.

The Bible talks about Christ Himself being 'the Logos' that was at the beginning of the universe in John 1. We know from these texts as well that Christ is emphasized as being Love oriented, completley and entirely, and tantamount to being a 'light' to the world that is otherwise dark. These are very metaphysical words because by light we do not simply mean light & light alone.

Many talk about God as having not just these three personhoods, but also being the animating character of goodness that exists in the world. But this is a very difficutl theological point and a mystery. But I can confidently say that this is very relevant for when we say that God is the source of all morality, because God is literally equated with being the source of light in the universe itself.

God is the architect of everything, and so He is the arbiter of the Good and the Evil.

But we also have to say that good things are obviously and understandably good. We can just look at things and understand them in this context by reason alone.

God does not countermand our concept of the Good, right.

So, a thing is Good because it is created good by God, and we understand this with our rational faculties, but we also understand that God is the author of the good, and all things that are good are dependent on God characterizing it in this way.

There's sort of a compatibalism that exists here not unlike the compatibalism of the free will / predestination arguments.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

(1) I think you would be wrong on women not having any legal standing. The Bible is full of warnings against those who do not help the widows and fatherless.

https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Bible-Verses-About-Widows/

You should understand that a widow is now a woman without any man at all in the world to be her representative because you are basically right that a woman was represented by her father, and then by her husband after her marriage. To this day, in Iran, they say that divorced women are among the only free women because they actually are now no longer subject to any impositions from men in their life.

(2) The marital thing is interesting because there are other elements in Western tradition that go back to Greece which involve man being a sort of Kign in his castle....

Check this out:

The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail, its roof may shake; the wind may blow through it; the storm may enter, the rain may enter -- but the King of England cannot enter; all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement!
-- William Pitt the Elder, Earl of Chatham (1708-1788)

It marks out how even in the more classic European monarchies these ideas persisted that a man has full dominion over his home and is free from beign searched or subjected unjustly...

And this goes back to concepts about masculien authority over his whole home. I think there were even cases in Greece where a father was allowed full and absolute authority over his children, including the authority of life and death.

Obviously, no one is saying that a father should kill his children, or that a man should abuse his wife, but there were rigid concepts of jurisdiction... And I guess that is interesting.

These aren't even Christian ideas necessarily.

Hannah Arendt covered this, and I think Nietzsche did, too, about the Greek & Roman concepts of fathers and jurisdictions. I think Evola did stuff with this, too.

If I come across it again at some point I'll make a thread here abotu it because it involves metaphysical concepts of limitations on government and interactions, and concepts of personhood. It's pretty wild stuff.

Your argument reads like this to me:

There was a miscarriage of justice in the 14th century France, in a different tradition, that was resolved partly on a strange tradition involving concepts of divine intervention...

So, how could there be justice for women in ancient Israel?

But, we have passages like this in the Bible:

21 “Do not mistreat or oppress a foreigner, for you were foreigners in Egypt.

22 “Do not take advantage of the widow or the fatherless. 23 If you do and they cry out to me, I will certainly hear their cry. 24 My anger will be aroused, and I will kill you with the sword; your wives will become widows and your children fatherless.
(Exodus 22:22-23)

Say whatever you want about whether or not the system worked perfeclty, because we all know full well that no system of man works perfectly.

But the Bible is plain as day on this issue: you shouldn't violate the rights of orphans, widows, and foreigners.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

(1) The French system was bad. But it is irrelevant to whatever was happening in Bronze & Iron Age Israel.

Was it a Christian system? The people were Christians, but Christianity can exist in a variety of ways, under a variety of systems, and in a variety of contexts. It is also very true that in places where Christianity does exist it is often ignored or distorted.

... Is there anything in Christianity that prevents a woman from herself filing suit against a criminal? No, absolutely not.

... So the 14th century French system was bad.

I am not a Catholic. The Popes have been Christian. Some of these Popes have been abolustely terrible.

But is that an argument against Christianity? Of course not.

(2)

So, given that a noblewoman could not pursue justice on her own against an
accused rapist in late 14th century France, how likely is that ordinary women
could have done so in Biblical times?

So you think that medieval France was much more advanced socially & legally than Bronze/Iron Age Israel?

What was more advanced: Rome or feudal France?

Dark Ages Persia or Iran under the Islamic revolution?

Kiev under the newly Christinaized Rus or Kiev under the Communists?

You're making some assumptions.

(3) What do Christians believe in?

Christ, and the Bible as the Word of God.

What does the Bible say? That widows and orphans should never be denied justice.

DId the ancient Hebrews do bad things? Yes! The Bible is full of examples of this, and they were punished for it.

So....? Sure?

I guess the Hebrews would have done plenty of bad things... against the will of God.

YET, ideally, within the internal logic presented by the Hebraic legal system, there should have been justice for widows, orphans, and foreigners, and violators of women should have been fully punished.

I'm sure you understand these distinctions. ^^

@fmf said
That last paragraph was a wee bit opaque due to missing punctuation and words. Here it is again:

I don't think that what the Hebrews did to the Midianites in order to demonize them, kill them all, and take their land is legitimized...

[1] by them believing they were made in the image of God and have by design a moral conscience, and

[2] by them writing an account of the ...[text shortened]... which they claimed their invasion and occupation of Canaan was something their God told them to do.

I got this the first time.

Even though I think that this rare insight into your thoughts is tragically wrong, I do acknowledge your free will right to think what you want.

Let's all play your game now.

IF "their invasion and occupation of Canaan" WAS "something their God told them to do", then would it, to your way of thinking, legitimize their actions then and since?