War Crimes in the Bible

@sonship said
@Ghost-of-a-Duke

Good morning. Been away from the boards for awhile.

Please explain in brief but reasonably clear words why you think Duchess64 has the high moral ground. Especially from the perspective of Atheism.

In regards to your view that God's divine remedy for rape is having the victim marry her rapist?

Whether or not Duchess is an atheist is irrelevant when it come to rejecting such a view on highly superior moral grounds. I'm sure many theists would also find such a view repugnant.

@Ghost-of-a-Duke

In regards to your view that God's divine remedy for rape is having the victim marry her rapist?

Whether or not Duchess is an atheist is irrelevant when it come to rejecting such a view on highly superior moral grounds. I'm sure many theists would also find such a view repugnant.

As you wish to be accurately represented in what you SAID, so do I.

At first, earlier in the discussion you may have had ground to isolate a phrase "God's divine remedy" whether that is a quote or not. However, I clarified that the provision I pointed to in Deuteronomy 21:10-14 should not [edited] be taken as the perfect divine remedy making rapes and violations of women in warfare just fine.

I thought I clarified any misunderstanding that not any of the provisions the law of God instituted for the captive women was a perfect remedy as if it made everything alright.

There were laws which took into account the tragedy of a situation and prescribe some protection to the women. Their right to protection from sex slavery and rape were evidenced as God's provision for women captives in warfare.
Please don't portray me trying to say the laws for captive women during warfare made everything that might happen to them just right.

Seeing that if some soldier did violate the published command to let the captive women mourn for one month in his house and then marry her, he is still not getting away with his crime in the overall scheme of things before God.

I think that most of the soldiers in that instance of the Midianites should have had it fresh in their memory that twenty four thousand Israelites DIED in a plague sent by God for Israelite men's greedy lustful fornicating. I think, they would have been not anxious to occasion another act of judgment by the gang rapes and fornication you and Duchess64 are sure took place at the defeat of the Midianites.

God had judged Israel for mass fornication concerning this very Midianite society. But you want to believe mass fornications, gang rapes, rapes, violations were ordained or permitted by Him in warfare. The evidence of the commands of Deuteronomy 21:10-14 indicate otherwise.

While I pointed out some remedy there I don't think it was the perfect answer which made everything that happens to the woman okay.

And I'll comment on the Atheism ethics latter.

Your first reason for Duchess64 having the moral highground in the debate is based on a misrepresentation of words that I clarified to avoid misunderstanding.

@sonship said
@Ghost-of-a-Duke

Good morning. Been away from the boards for awhile.

Please explain in brief but reasonably clear words why you think Duchess64 has the high moral ground in this thread. Especially from the perspective of Atheism.

Why do you capitalize the 'a' in the word "atheism"?

@FMF

Inconsistent, a little sloppy.
Atheism - atheism - theism - Theism - agnosticism - Agnosticism

deism - Deism

I'm not consistent.

@sonship said
@FMF

Inconsistent, a little sloppy.
Atheism - atheism - theism - Theism - agnosticism - Agnosticism

deism - Deism

I'm not consistent.

"Not consistent"? No, I don't believe you/ I think it is an affectation. A deliberate one. So, be honest. What do you think it 'means' to capitalize it?

@sonship

It seems you are having a hard time remembering what you wrote, which is understandable. Here it is for your perusal -

This a provision ... SHOULD ... something happen.
This is a proscription for what to do ... PER CHANCE ... something should occur.

It is not a divine command to go RAPE.
It is a divine remedy for the misfortune of someone BEING raped. This is not "GO AND RAPE." Neither is it "Thus says the Lord, I CONDONE rape."

Similarly, are God's instructions IF ... divorce should occur is not God's instruction to "GO AND DIVORCE" (which is something He says He hates (Malachi 2:16) ).

@FMF

Why do you capitalize the 'a' in the word "atheism"?

It may subconsciously have to do with how formidable an opponent the philosophy is on a given day. Captital A - Atheism may mean its a really bad opponent today.

When I write ATHEISM like that, you know you really have me on the ropes.
When I write atheism, its just a minor little problem, like a mosquito.

Now I know you are about to ask me about Theism or theism and I haven't thought it out yet. In the mean time, in case some have not read Deut. 21:10-14 which is more relevant to the OP:

When you go out to battle against your enemies, and the Lord your God delivers them into your hands and you take them away captive, and you see among the captives a beautiful woman, and have a desire for her and would take her as a wife for yourself, then you shall bring her home to your house, and she shall shave her head and trim her nails. She shall also remove the cloths of her captivity and shall remain in your house, and mourn her father and mother a full month; and after that you may go in to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife.

It shall be, if you are not pleased with her, then you shall let her go wherever she wishes, but you shall certainly not sell her for money, you shall not mistreat her, because you have humbled her. (Deut. 21:10-14)

@sonship

You appear confused, although i may be wrong. Your comment regarding 'divine remedy' was in response to Deuteronomy 22:28-29

If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

Nothing to do with captives and warfare.

@Proper-Knob

It is a divine remedy for the misfortune of someone BEING raped. This is not "GO AND RAPE." Neither is it "Thus says the Lord, I CONDONE rape."

I do not deny that I wrote that.
THEN ... I clarified so as to not be misunderstood.

This is a very effective tactic you are using. Now I have to go back over 400 posts and find the post AFTER the one you just copied. And that should take out maybe ten minutes?

That post above was on was Feb. 19:39
(Wow. I got three down thumbs. I must be doing something right.)

Then at 22:14 I wrote to Duchess64

Show us now that you intend to completely ignore my clarification of what I did NOT mean.

When one writes a post, which is followed by a criticism because it was short and concise, not taking into account all nuances of a complex situation, clarification to avoid misunderstanding is allowed.

I allow YOU that procedure. If you don't want to allow me to do so, it doesn't do much for my regard for your integrity, sorry to say.

Now, I clarified what you should NOT take that post to mean.

I had to read through rapidly. I am sure that between these two posts, I clarified that I did not mean THE PERFECT divine remedy for the captive woman.

When one of you re-states something, I accept it and move on, possibly re-grouping my argument. Some of you guys seem to like to not allow others to refine their communications and clarify their positions.

@Proper-Knob

It seems you are having a hard time remembering what you wrote, which is understandable. Here it is for your perusal -

That's right. That post was probably in another argument over a verse, another series of exchanges.

But I think I recall the whole matter of me writing "a divine remedy" got exaggerated in another aspect of this to be ie. "the one and only divine remedy making violation of women ok."

That two or more people were involved with slightly different arguments, makes it a little confusing to me now.

@sonship

Effective tactic? You're being paranoid. You didn't seem to remember the exact wording you had used so i posted the full text. Nothing 'tactical' in that surely?!

@Proper-Knob

Effective tactic? You're being paranoid. You didn't seem to remember the exact wording you had used so i posted the full text. Nothing 'tactical' in that surely?!

Too defensive?
Sorry.

@sonship said
@Ghost-of-a-Duke

In regards to your view that God's divine remedy for rape is having the victim marry her rapist?

Whether or not Duchess is an atheist is irrelevant when it come to rejecting such a view on highly superior moral grounds. I'm sure many theists would also find such a view repugnant.

As you wish to be accurately represented in what you ...[text shortened]... d in the debate is based on a misrepresentation of words that I clarified to avoid misunderstanding.

Please explain why a perfect deity would put forward an imperfect remedy? I have asked you this previously and am still awaiting a satisfactory reply.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
Please explain why a perfect deity would put forward an imperfect remedy? I have asked you this previously and am still awaiting a satisfactory reply.

Matthew 19:8 Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.

I view slavery being allowed in a similar light. It was more or less a means of survival until freed under Mosaic law after 7 years or so.

@whodey said
Matthew 19:8 Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.

I view slavery being allowed in a similar light. It was more or less a means of survival until freed under Mosaic law after 7 years or so.

In your own words, 'Please explain why a perfect deity would put forward an imperfect remedy?'

Edit: Okay, just read your edit.