Is God good?

If you cannot specifically point out exactly what I wrote that you cannot understand, then spare me the charge of sophistry. That sounds lie a lot of pretentious bluster to me on your part.Pinpoint where you lose comprehension and I'll see if I can make it clearer. So far you have not demonstrated it as an even traditionally agreed upon conclusion. That was your job.You're asserting in essence "What else could it be?"Maybe so. Do some work and prove it.
Maybe you're wrong.No law as I can see condoned rape.
I already provided you proof that "hard cases" and cases "complicated" were refered to discerning judges.You don't want to accept any burden to prove that the she had no other choice. I already presented evidence that ANE captives often became serfs to the new land owners in cases of conquest.A wife of a captor would not be a serf. If you know a forced wife is the only option produce some rabbinical evidence that that was what the Jews understood there.I'm out on a limb here. But you do some of the burden of research since you're SO SURE that anything other than forced marriage is a frivolous error in interpretation. That is how you're posturing. You don't want to do any work do you ?Worse than sophistry. I used the NSRV, (NRSV?) Sherlock, because I was NOT at home. I was at a relative's house on his PC, and the New Revised Standard Bible was the only Bible near by to USE.Here it is again in my favorite translation the Recovery Version - "And you see a beautiful woman among the captives and desire her and would take her to yourself as a wife." (v.11 RcV) "And take her clothes of captivity away from her." (v. 13 RcV). I am at home now with my own customery bibles nearby.
By the way, consulting other translations can be helpful. It could be missing steps. As there could be missing steps inbetween seeing her among the captives and taking her into your house.Suppose you think she's beautiful and desireable to marry and one or two other soldiers thought the same thing?You see ALL of the details are not always covered. THAT is why I submitted that "hard cases" and cases too "complicated" required additional discrimination of judges or priests.I do not ASSUME they were only barbaric Neanderthals just because they were worshippers of Yahweh.I cannot find any condoned rape. The articles I am reading say the law in Deut 21:10-14 was there to protect the woman.And that is all the time I have this morning. You bear some of the burden to prove your view.If you really "care" as you said, then you'll present some results of your own research. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Point?
Their belief is that God does tell them, 1.33 billion patriarchs, that.
The Hebrew patriarchs wrote down what they say god told them to do.I would argue that god made patriarchs, and they were made to do stuff like this by that god.I believe that these patriarchs reason their god would want to kill seven promiscuous girls every year rather than kill the 1.2 million unborn babies the gentiles in the West abort.It even seems rrasonable that God would perfer the death of the seven to the 1.2 million.It even seems reasonable that god woud want these men to stop those men from kiling the First born.

No, that is not my job. In fact, you are not really even disputing the conclusion. You aren't even offering another position. You are simply acting like someone who wishes that the words say something other that what is in the text. That was the point of picking this particular example. You were out on a similar limb with your position that the Bible only includes indentured servitude and not slavery. You are the one that climbed out there on those limbs.I understand that the rules were an improvement over what others were doing, but you want to go beyond that and to claim that they represent some high moral code because they are written as a first person account of God speaking. Well perhaps the rules aren't moral from any reasonable modern view.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Why did you not try to access the Bible from the internet? You can find any translation of the Bible you want from an internet connected PC. I apologize for my accusation.

I never said that Hitler was a good Christian. But neither was he a Darwinian:

TheBible eem to be descru=ibing the sociology of the pre-32AD world, doesn't it?It isn't that the code was high and moral.
It just is the code that patriarchs recognize as normal behavior for patriarchs.Compare what the bible says about the other societies surrounding these Hebrew patriarchs that emerged from Egypt.They also have codes of behavior.
They are sexually promiscuous and fornicating.
They believe that a whole pantheon of god's condone various types of behavior as proper and suitable.The God of the Bible doe seem to favor the former over the latter.
This is merely descriptive information about these two different perspectives which are still with us today.The Bible seems to end with the New Testament which supports an alternative third type of social behavior which is not sexually promiscuous like the gentiles of the OT, nor is it the harsh male dominance over the women held to a sexual prudence that hides them away from life itself.These same three kinds of male/female behaviors are apparent today are they not?

But you do agree he was a Progressive socialist democrat who believed in the idea that social engineering can mould a better world, i.e. Social Darwinism however subtle??

No, because I don't drool out ridiculous lies and nonsense.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

You are definitely out ranking me with the sheer force of your ridicule.But I humbly inform you that Hitler was a member of the Democratic Socialist Party very much supported and financed by the Unions just lije our Progressive social engineers here.The National Socialist German Workers' Party (German: Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (helpinfo), abbreviated NSDAP), commonly known in English as the Nazi Party, was a political party in Germany between 1920 and 1945."Initially, Nazi political strategy focused on anti-big business, anti-bourgeois, and anti-capitalist rhetoric, although such aspects were later downplayed in order to gain the support of industrial entities,"...Edited by kofh2u, : No reason given.Edited by kofh2u, : No reason given.

Democrats don't usually start dictatorships, 'cos of dictatorship being kinda the opposite of democracy.And socialists don't usually have a policy of killing all the socialists, which is pretty much the opposite of socialism.You're right that the Nazi Party originally had a leftish component, the so-called "beefsteak Nazis". Then Hitler had them all shot.Oh, and he made trade unions illegal.The other thing you evidently don't know is the definition of "Social Darwinism", which is the very opposite of "social engineering". It's a doctrine of extremist laissez-faire. (And has nothing to do with Darwin, who opposed it.)Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

I'm old fashion and like flipping pages. I do not always like to cut and paste when it comes to the Bible. I do not like too much instantaneous technology when it comes to the word of God.When I handle the Bible even in discussions like this, I like to enjoy it, savor it, linger in its sweetness.Thank you for thinking to apologize. I accept. I also apologize for any rudeness. And I hope we can disagree without being too disagreeable.Thankyou for thinking to apologize. Now, what were we at each other's throat about?Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Fair enough. Often an urge to apologize is a gift from God. But the ability to receive apologies gracefully is a true gift. Nothing earth shattering. And it's nearly Christmas Day anyway. Time for the lifting of foot from neck!

There is a lot of reading to do which I will be digesting beyond this discussion. [Emphasis is mine]Here is a one comment on a Jewish Talmud note on Deut. 21:10-14 as I try to find out about the female POW. Interestingly, this commnetator said that the reason she was to be shaved of her hair, was to allow the captor to less attracted to her. This gave him time to withdraw a foolish infatuation so as to not marry her foolishly.

quote:

---

But, though military men were allowed this liberty, yet care is here taken that they should not abuse it, that is,

​

I. That they should not abuse themselves by doing it too hastily, though the captive was ever so desirable: "If thou wouldest have her to thy wife (Deu 21:10, Deu 21:11), it is true thou needest not ask her parents' consent, for she is thy captive, and is at thy disposal. But, 1. Thou shalt have no familiar intercourse till thou hast married her." This allowance was designed to gratify, not a filthy brutish lust, in the heat and fury of its rebellion against reason and virtue, but an honourable and generous affection to a comely and amiable person, though in distress; therefore he may make her his wife if he will, but he must not deal with her as with a harlot. 2. "Thou shalt not marry her of a sudden, but keep her a full month in thy house," Deu 21:12, Deu 21:13. This he must do either, (1.) That he may try to take his affection off from her; for he must know that, though in marrying her he does not do ill (so the law then stood), yet in letting her alone he does much better. Let her therefore shave her head, that he might not be enamoured with her locks, and let her nails grow (so the margin reads it), to spoil the beauty of her hand. Quisquid amas cupias non placuisse nimis - We should moderate our affection for those things which we are tempted to love inordinately. Or rather, (2.) This was done in token of her renouncing idolatry, and becoming a proselyte to the Jewish religion. The shaving of her head, the paring of her nails, and the changing of her apparel, signified her putting off her former conversation, which was corrupt in her ignorance, that she might become a new creature. She must remain in his house to be taught the good knowledge of the Lord and the worship of him: and the Jews say that if she refused, and continued obstinate in idolatry, he must not marry her. Note, The professors of religion must not be unequally yoked with unbelievers, Co2 6:14.

​

II. That they should not abuse the poor captive. 1. She must have time to bewail her father and mother, from whom she was separated, and without whose consent and blessing she is now likely to be married, and perhaps to a common soldier of Israel, though in her country ever so nobly born and bred. To force a marriage till these sorrows were digested, and in some measure got over, and she was better reconciled to the land of her captivity by being better acquainted with it, would be very unkind. She must not bewail her idols, but be glad to part with them; to her near and dear relations only her affection must be thus indulged. 2. If, upon second thoughts, he that had brought her to his house with a purpose to marry her changed his mind and would not marry her, he might not make merchandise of her, as of his other prisoners, but must give her liberty to return, if she pleased, to her own country, because he had humbled her and afflicted her, by raising expectations and then disappointing them (Deu 21:14); having made a fool of her, he might not make a prey of her. This intimates how binding the laws of justice and honour are, particularly in the pretensions of love, the courting of affections, and the promises of marriage, which are to be looked upon as solemn things, that have something sacred in them, and therefore are not to be jested with.

​

​

http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/cmt/henry/deu021.htm

---

I will submit comments as I find them to address or come close to addressing the point.From this explanation above I can see that it was BETTER for the soldier NOT to marry the women if she would not choose to renounce her idolatry and become a perspective participant in Hebrew culture. Ie. Forcing a marriage could lead him into serious troubles.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Another comment from the same website: (Deut. 21:10-14)

quote:

---

And seest - a beautiful woman - No forcible possession was allowed even in this case, when the woman was taken in war, and was, by the general consent of ancient nations, adjudged as a part of the spoils. The person to whose lot or share such a woman as is here described fell, might, if he chose, have her for a wife on certain conditions; but he was not permitted to use her under any inferior character.

---

More on Deut 21:10-14 (with some accopanying music)Please watch in its entirety for most benefit.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPs2ii9P010Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.