It must be a relief, then, to have found this forum, where that is not our policy. We obviously welcome any honest dialogue from every side of the broad spectrum. One thing that I, personally, do not tolerate well is people who are not honest enough to address the challenges to their views that others present. You will note, for example, that every time someone challenges me on any point, I show up to clarify and defend my position. If they state multiple objections, I immediately post answers to each objection. This is because I am honest, and will not repeatedly make unsubstantiated, irresponsible assertions without defending them from scripture. I see this as the code of honor required in every honest discussion, and it is the standard that I tend to hold out for in others’ participation here, as well.From the almost 50 years I have spent in the church, I have found that questioners are usually dealt with quickly. First they are labeled "liberal" (or apostate) for questioning orthodoxy/ancient creeds. Then they are accused of creating a caricature of God so they can ridicule God, the Bible, God's followers, Christianity, etc. This usually shuts them up or causes them to leave the church that no longer welcomes them.
As for calling someone’s view a “caricature,” if you think I use the term incorrectly, I would point out that the last time I used it was with reference to your earlier post, in which you blatantly misrepresented a passage in Deuteronomy in order to heap scorn upon it. If you wish to take the passage for what it actually says, and then to scorn it, that is your prerogative. However, even after I pointed out to you what the teaching of the passage is, you have again, in your last post, resorted to presenting the same caricature (see below). If you don’t want people to call your view a caricature, my advice would be for you to stop misrepresenting the contents of the passage which you wish to critique. I understand well enough, of course, why you feel compelled to transmogrify the passage. When the passage is presented on its own terms, without caricature, few reasonable people would find it objectionable, and your objections look misguided.
Strike two? I don't remember a first one being called. In any case, it seems to be you that strike out in this discussion. Why are you denying what you wrote? You certainly did present your slant on Deuteronomy 21 (are you denying it?). Look at your first post of September 8th, to me (above). Your comments about Deuteronomy 21 are very prominent there.Steve wrote:I didn't write this and I've never read it before...strike twoNot the way you misrepresented it, no. Neither would Moses. However, this is another example of you (or somebody you have been reading) misrepresenting the actual content of the law.
Deuteronomy 21:11-14 is an addendum to 20:14, which talks about the sparing of women and children who survive when the enemy's men are slain in war. The passage you referenced goes into the treatment of the females of marriageable age among the prisoners. Under ancient conditions, in any society, such prisoners would become eligible for marriage (or rape) to their captors. The Torah does not forbid such marriage (though it does not permit rape).
In my paragraph (which you quoted) I was presenting a more responsible treatment of the passage—looking at the actual text without the gratuitous emotional verbiage. What do you mean that you never wrote what you did?
This is where your caricature emerges again. You speak of “taking them in to have sex with them” instead of the stated purpose, “she shall be your wife” (Deut.21:13). You spin this as if promiscuous sex or rape are somehow permitted here, when it is explicitly discussing marriage. Granted, a man who has a wife will probably "have sex with" her—but since you have five children, I am guessing that even you would not find fault with that.The way you spun Deuteronomy 21:11-14 was pretty impressive. According to you the pretty girls that were taken by the soldiers were widows of enemy soldiers, so taking them in to have sex with them wasn't a bad thing. So why exactly did they take the beautiful ones?
“Why do they take the beautiful ones?” you ask. Are you that naive? When men choose their wives, it is very common for them to choose women whom they regard as beautiful, if possible. Haven’t you noticed? Did you marry a woman that you did not find attractive? I doubt it. Why, then, fault the Israelites for being like you and like all other men?
You apparently don’t realize that all the female prisoners of war, beautiful and otherwise, were taken into captivity. The captive women became part of Israelite society. As such, they became part of Israel’s female population, the pool from which men would naturally choose their mates. They should not be faulted if they chose women who were easy on the eyes.
When correct exegesis is dismissed without argument, simply as "impressive spin" the integrity of the dialogue is being compromised. Is this intentional with you?
You are apparently confusing unlike situations. Since you mention killing the animals, I assume that you are talking about the wars of annihilation, in which no virgins were spared. The wars of annihilation were exceptional—and applied only to the wars against the Canaanites and Amalekites.It's also interesting that you don't apply this verse to what actually happened during the conquest, when God said kill everyone man, woman, child, and animal but keep the virgins.
Deuteronomy 20:13-18 clearly distinguishes between regular wars and the wars of annihilation. The wars described in Deuteronomy 20:13-14 are regular wars, specifically differentiated from the wars of annihilation. Deuteronomy 21:10-14 obviously gives more detail on these regular wars. This should be obvious by the fact that, in a war where everyone was killed, there would be no problem of captive women to administrate.
You find it interesting that I actually read the text and apply normal means of interpretation? It would not be half so interesting if you cared to read the Law with a mind to understand it, rather than to fault it (or even if you had read my previous post to you, which explained this). I find it interesting that you didn't.
Your reference to keeping alive the virgins, it seems to me, must refer to the unique case of the slaughter of the Midianites. This was not part of the conquest of which Moses and Joshua so frequently spoke. It was a reprisal against those who had brought a plague upon Israel through sexual seduction. The virgins were to be spared, since they were the only women who could be proven to be innocent of this crime (Num.31:14-18). They were told to spare the virgins "for yourselves." A pervert reading this might assume that this meant there would be an orgy that night. In the context of God's law, it would more likely be taken to mean they were taken into Israelite society, where they became servants and wives. What kind of mind sees perversion here?
Really? Can you give me an example of my doing something like this? Most Baptist Sunday School classes would find much in my teachings to make them uncomfortable. What I have done (something you don’t seem to know how to do, nor to recognize when someone else does it) was simply to exegete the text and to expound its obvious meaning in context. Such exposition would hardly be called “sugar-coating” unless it served to remove an objection that you were determined to maintain. If you can exegete the texts better than I did, be my guest. If not, then you might ask yourself, “Why do I not want to see this in an accurate way that removes my objections?” Makes one wonder, does it not?And you are determined to keep sugar coating everything Moses said so that it's suitable for a Baptist Sunday school class.
If the platitudes Paidion has cited count as the best “answers” that his view can produce, then the argument can be formally declared as over. No need for further input. Yet, he continues to make absolutely irresponsible criticisms of the Bible—disagreeing with every Old Testament author and every New Testament author. If his only available answer is, “God loves His enemies and tells us to love ours,” then this is platitude indeed—unless he can demonstrate that this principle nullifies ¾ of what the Bible (including Jesus and the apostles) says about God. This is what he has been challenged to do. This is the next thing he is required to do in this discussion. Refusal to do so does not bespeak honesty. If his answer is, "Well, Jesus, Paul, Peter, and the rest of those guys just did not understand the nature of God as well as I do,” then that is truly an attitude worthy of being banned in a forum like this, where Christians are expected to see themselves below, not above, the authority of Christ and the scriptures.I think it's highly troubling that Paidion, who has been an active and valuable member of this forum for 10 years, is told that he can't advocate his "one-dimensional God" doctrine anymore on this forum until he answers your objections. But when he answers your objections you call his answers "subjective platitudes." (I also think it's silly to imply a god of love and peace is one-dimentional and somehow lesser than a full-orbed God of love, peace, hate, and violence.)
Yes, I changed my view of hell by looking more closely at the biblical evidence–not by ignoring or denying it. I am not likely to change any view of mine by neutralizing the teaching of both testaments, simply because it crosses my sentiments. Some people may think that I changed my view of hell for sentimental reasons. If they think this, they can hardly have read my book.Steve, don't forget that you, not so long ago, moved away from the traditional view of hell and have put a lot of energy into demonstrating the inadequacy of the traditional orthodox view. So be careful where you draw your lines.
