I recently got into a debate about Numbers 31

[Sirami]

It's very difficult for me to understand the viewpoint of the truly faithful. I recently got into a debate with my aunt, who is a strong fundamentalist. Scripture came into the debate, and I brought up numbers 31.

Here's the New International Version for reference:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se ... ersion=NIV

I suggest you read the whole chapter, but here's a paraphrase for those that won't read it:

God told Moses to wipe out Midian as a result of them worshiping other Gods. So Moses people did wipe them out.

After all the fighting men of Midain were killed and the women and children were brought back to camp.

Moses got angry and told his officers that all of the women must be killed, and to kill all of the children as well, except for the children that were female virgins. The female virgins were forced into marriage with the people that destroyed their homes and families.

Now, when reading the bible it's pretty clear that not only did God approve of all of this, God demanded that all of this happen. To me that sounds a lot like the LRA of today.

How could somebody respect God and Moses after reading something like this?

[Sirami]

It's very difficult for me to understand the viewpoint of the truly faithful. I recently got into a debate with my aunt, who is a strong fundamentalist. Scripture came into the debate, and I brought up numbers 31.

Here's the New International Version for reference:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se ... ersion=NIV

I suggest you read the whole chapter, but here's a paraphrase for those that won't read it:

God told Moses to wipe out Midian as a result of them worshiping other Gods. So Moses people did wipe them out.

After all the fighting men of Midain were killed and the women and children were brought back to camp.

Moses got angry and told his officers that all of the women must be killed, and to kill all of the children as well, except for the children that were female virgins. The female virgins were forced into marriage with the people that destroyed their homes and families.

Now, when reading the bible it's pretty clear that not only did God approve of all of this, God demanded that all of this happen. To me that sounds a lot like the LRA of today.

How could somebody respect God and Moses after reading something like this?

Where does it say in that chapter that:

"The female virgins were forced into marriage with the people that destroyed their homes and families." ?



All Praise The Ancient OF Days

Numbers 31:

"17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

32 The plunder remaining from the spoils that the soldiers took was 675,000 sheep, 33 72,000 cattle, 34 61,000 donkeys 35 and 32,000 women who had never slept with a man.

36 The half share of those who fought in the battle was: 337,500 sheep,

37 of which the tribute for the LORD was 675;

38 36,000 cattle, of which the tribute for the LORD was 72;

39 30,500 donkeys, of which the tribute for the LORD was 61;

40 16,000 people, of whom the tribute for the LORD was 32."

They are taken as plunder. That either means forced marriage or slavery.

[Sirami]

God told Moses to wipe out Midian as a result of them worshiping other Gods. So Moses people did wipe them out.

After all the fighting men of Midain were killed and the women and children were brought back to camp.

Moses got angry and told his officers that all of the women must be killed, and to kill all of the children as well, except for the children that were female virgins. The female virgins were forced into marriage with the people that destroyed their homes and families.

Now, when reading the bible it's pretty clear that not only did God approve of all of this, God demanded that all of this happen. To me that sounds a lot like the LRA of today.

How could somebody respect God and Moses after reading something like this?

The Midianites were "cousins" (decendents from Abraham) to the Israelites and not one of the nations God pronounced would be totally destroyed; however their joining forces with the Moabites put them in harms way and was viewed by God as an attack ; subvertive actions of the Midianites resulted in the death of 23,000 Israelites and God instructed his people later to take revenge on this Midianite-Moabite coalition. The Israelites were told to destroy their cities in a specific territory (the nation was NOT wiped out completely). In this conflict, as in many of the Isaelite wars, only virgin girls were to be spared.

WHY ONLY VIRGIN GIRLS

When fighting a war the ultimate goal is the survival of your nation. Sparing men, adult women and boys would represent a significant threat to their future national security. While girls bought up in a community tend to adopt the culture and standards of their surroundings and children born to them identify with their father's nation and loyalties, this is not the case with boys. The man's dominant position would mean that their children would no doubt continue the allegences of their father and the national identity would be split; it would only be a matter of time before those households sought revenge for past grievances, no matter how many generations back that was. Sparing the boys or adults would be effectively be implanting potential subvertive elements in their nation that would ultimately prove destructive. The Isaelites did in fact live to see the disastreous effects of NOT following God's explicit command to clear the territories completely of their enemies. Obeying God's commands would have spared the nation hundreds of years of warfare and countless lives.

SPARING THE BABIES

Further, fighting a war and asking the soldiers to take all the small children and babies first is a completely impractical war stratagie that would leave the soldiers themselves vulnerable. They would presumably have to either be fighting with a toddler in one arm or attempting to leave the war zone with them get them to safety and then return to fight some more, pick up some more babies and fight holding them while getting them to safety... there is little doubt the Israelites would have been wiped out and their own children eventually killed had they adopted this approach to war.

HOLY/DIVINE WARFARE

A lot of bible texts presented as evidence of God's "bloodthirsty" nature are verses pertaining to divine Warfare where God commission his people to execute nations the refused to bow to divine mandate for example:

"The Lord commands: "... slay old men outright, young men and maidens, little children and women" -- Ezekiel 9:4-6 (also see Numbers 31:17-18; Jeremiah 48:10)


DIVINE RIGHT

Can God steal from himself?

The entire planet belongs to the Creator, it is his property to do with as he sees fit. Arguing that God did not have the right to assign a specific territory to a specific group is like arguing that a father doesn't have a right to move his child from one room in the house to another. God assigned a specific territory to the descendents of Abraham and the nations that lived there prior to their arrival should, upon notification of divine intentions, vaccated the territory and bowed to divine right. Complete capitulation was their only option, enemy nations chose to fight instead of go for this option, they therefore forfeited their right to live in the territory (with "live" being the operative word).


HOW MUCH WAS GOD DEMANDING?

The land the Israelites were given was vastly inferior in size to what neighbouring (and subsequent) powers claimed. While Alexandre the great would conquer whole continents, and the American colonies spread westward over thousands of miles of native American territories, the total area of the State of Israel is 8,522.04 sq. miles (22,072 sq.km.); about 290 miles (470 km.) in length from north to south and some 85 miles (135 km.) across at its widest point between the Dead Sea and the Mediterranean coast.

HISTORY - GETTING A GRIP

While not belittling how sad it was that humans chose to defy the God, critics seem not only to operate in a kind of historic vacuume - where acceptance of the reality of how nations (including their own) were established is completely (and conveniently) irrelevant; but one almost gets the impression they think the great civilisations such as Greece and Roman asked residents nicely if they would mind moving over and history promptly and neatly rearranged itself.

The ugly reality is however that the human race have been fighting for territories as long as its existed with no intervention from the creator, and that, based on much more selfish criteria than those of the biblical narrative.

WHY NOT FIND ANOTHER WAY

God could have magically trasported them, hypnotised them, made them not be born in the first place... in short, God could have taken away the individual free will of a particular group of people. He COULD have but he chose not to. Our creator respects our right to live and make choices. He has faith we will make the best ones for ourselve and our family. Transporting the offending nations would not have changed their attitutde and he'd have to keep them heavily sediated to not eventually chose to return and reclaim their territory. What next Mars? God choses to leave us free will but we will have to live the consequences of our choices. It is not for HIM to find another way, it is for humans to bend to divine will. The nations that frequently attacked his people, joined forces and totally out numbered them and failed ot surrender completely to them faced the consequences of oppositing the Creator and his representatives (in this case the Israelites). When you drive full speed into a war, do you blame the wall? War is hell, warring against the Almighty is suicide.




I'm afraid I don't know what LRA is so I cannot address that.

This is very informative, thank you.

So God does approve of the slaughter of children in times of war, and you find that just because of practicality.

I understand. You have to operate under the assumption that God is always in the right.

This is very interesting. I've gotten a lot of different approaches to this. It's very foreign to me, the thought process of a true believer. That people could reach out and actually find mental justification for the mandated slaughter of children is very odd indeed.

I have no misconceptions about how my country was founded. I don't like how it was founded.

Let it be known that should God decide he needs to slaughter me, I would rather lose my free will and have him magically fix me so I don't have to die.

Free will is less important to me than my life. If God exists and he can here me, I do pray that he would fix me instead of damn me to eternal hellfire.

I do not believe I am capable of believing in Jesus and God. The word of God is all that I have to go on, and the word of God paints a picture of a God I cannot follow, at least not the way he made me.

So please God, if you exist, fix me. Free will must be precious, as you choose to give it to us even if it means our own damnation. I offer my free will to you, oh Lord, that you would spare me eternal damnation. Your word says you have the power, so now the choice is yours and not mine, love me or hate me.

Also, should I have children that God would in the future decide to slaughter, I'd rather they not be born at all, and instead be replaced by a human that isn't "broken" in the eyes of the Lord.

And thank you again. You have been very helpful in regards to giving me insight on how a true believer's mind works.

[Sirami]

Consider a modern example: How can we respect the men and women that fought in WW2? Easy, they are the reason we are free today. That's what it boils down to for me.

I honestly think this as close to a complete rebuttal as is needed. What is missing or what irks you about it?

I would not respect a man or woman that fought in WW2 if they were responsible for the deliberate slaughter of thousands of innocent children.

[mitty]

God told Moses to wipe out Midian as a result of them worshiping other Gods. So Moses people did wipe them out.

After all the fighting men of Midain were killed and the women and children were brought back to camp.

Moses got angry and told his officers that all of the women must be killed, and to kill all of the children as well, except for the children that were female virgins. The female virgins were forced into marriage with the people that destroyed their homes and families.

Now, when reading the bible it's pretty clear that not only did God approve of all of this, God demanded that all of this happen. To me that sounds a lot like the LRA of today.

How could somebody respect God and Moses after reading something like this?

The Midianites were "cousins" (decendents from Abraham) to the Israelites and not one of the nations God pronounced would be totally destroyed; however their joining forces with the Moabites put them in harms way and was viewed by God as an attack ; subvertive actions of the Midianites resulted in the death of 23,000 Israelites and God instructed his people later to take revenge on this Midianite-Moabite coalition. The Israelites were told to destroy their cities in a specific territory (the nation was NOT wiped out completely). In this conflict, as in many of the Isaelite wars, only virgin girls were to be spared.

WHY ONLY VIRGIN GIRLS

When fighting a war the ultimate goal is the survival of your nation. Sparing men, adult women and boys would represent a significant threat to their future national security. While girls bought up in a community tend to adopt the culture and standards of their surroundings and children born to them identify with their father's nation and loyalties, this is not the case with boys. The man's dominant position would mean that their children would no doubt continue the allegences of their father and the national identity would be split; it would only be a matter of time before those households sought revenge for past grievances, no matter how many generations back that was. Sparing the boys or adults would be effectively be implanting potential subvertive elements in their nation that would ultimately prove destructive. The Isaelites did in fact live to see the disastreous effects of NOT following God's explicit command to clear the territories completely of their enemies. Obeying God's commands would have spared the nation hundreds of years of warfare and countless lives.

SPARING THE BABIES

Further, fighting a war and asking the soldiers to take all the small children and babies first is a completely impractical war stratagie that would leave the soldiers themselves vulnerable. They would presumably have to either be fighting with a toddler in one arm or attempting to leave the war zone with them get them to safety and then return to fight some more, pick up some more babies and fight holding them while getting them to safety... there is little doubt the Israelites would have been wiped out and their own children eventually killed had they adopted this approach to war.

HOLY/DIVINE WARFARE

A lot of bible texts presented as evidence of God's "bloodthirsty" nature are verses pertaining to divine Warfare where God commission his people to execute nations the refused to bow to divine mandate for example:

"The Lord commands: "... slay old men outright, young men and maidens, little children and women" -- Ezekiel 9:4-6 (also see Numbers 31:17-18; Jeremiah 48:10)


DIVINE RIGHT

Can God steal from himself?

The entire planet belongs to the Creator, it is his property to do with as he sees fit. Arguing that God did not have the right to assign a specific territory to a specific group is like arguing that a father doesn't have a right to move his child from one room in the house to another. God assigned a specific territory to the descendents of Abraham and the nations that lived there prior to their arrival should, upon notification of divine intentions, vaccated the territory and bowed to divine right. Complete capitulation was their only option, enemy nations chose to fight instead of go for this option, they therefore forfeited their right to live in the territory (with "live" being the operative word).


HOW MUCH WAS GOD DEMANDING?

The land the Israelites were given was vastly inferior in size to what neighbouring (and subsequent) powers claimed. While Alexandre the great would conquer whole continents, and the American colonies spread westward over thousands of miles of native American territories, the total area of the State of Israel is 8,522.04 sq. miles (22,072 sq.km.); about 290 miles (470 km.) in length from north to south and some 85 miles (135 km.) across at its widest point between the Dead Sea and the Mediterranean coast.

HISTORY - GETTING A GRIP

While not belittling how sad it was that humans chose to defy the God, critics seem not only to operate in a kind of historic vacuume - where acceptance of the reality of how nations (including their own) were established is completely (and conveniently) irrelevant; but one almost gets the impression they think the great civilisations such as Greece and Roman asked residents nicely if they would mind moving over and history promptly and neatly rearranged itself.

The ugly reality is however that the human race have been fighting for territories as long as its existed with no intervention from the creator, and that, based on much more selfish criteria than those of the biblical narrative.

WHY NOT FIND ANOTHER WAY

God could have magically trasported them, hypnotised them, made them not be born in the first place... in short, God could have taken away the individual free will of a particular group of people. He COULD have but he chose not to. Our creator respects our right to live and make choices. He has faith we will make the best ones for ourselve and our family. Transporting the offending nations would not have changed their attitutde and he'd have to keep them heavily sediated to not eventually chose to return and reclaim their territory. What next Mars? God choses to leave us free will but we will have to live the consequences of our choices. It is not for HIM to find another way, it is for humans to bend to divine will. The nations that frequently attacked his people, joined forces and totally out numbered them and failed ot surrender completely to them faced the consequences of oppositing the Creator and his representatives (in this case the Israelites). When you drive full speed into a war, do you blame the wall? War is hell, warring against the Almighty is suicide.




I'm afraid I don't know what LRA is so I cannot address that.

But what on earth has some bronze-age god of imagination got to do with these historical slaughterings and rapings and pillaging. It only seems that you assign some supernatural activity with these atrocities in the pre BC era yet you don't seem to consider that there is any divine intervention in more recent wars. Do you for example consider that the bronze-age god helped to kick the Palistinians out of their homes and reinstall the Jews into "the promised land" by creating Israel. Afterall, aren't these the same group of people that were susposedly put into the same region with the help of this bronze-age god. Or is this just more theoretical "if's" and wishful thinking and navel gazing.

[Wootah]

Consider a modern example: How can we respect the men and women that fought in WW2? Easy, they are the reason we are free today. That's what it boils down to for me.

I honestly think this as close to a complete rebuttal as is needed. What is missing or what irks you about it?

I would not respect a man or woman that fought in WW2 if they were responsible for the deliberate slaughter of thousands of innocent children.

Context is the only thing missing and you aren't allowing for it. The innocent children that died in all the cases being discussed are tragic consequences of what was occurring. You just don't accept the context. As for me I do forgive and give thanks for those that did what was needed so that we may be free.

[mitty]

Consider a modern example: How can we respect the men and women that fought in WW2? Easy, they are the reason we are free today. That's what it boils down to for me.

I honestly think this as close to a complete rebuttal as is needed. What is missing or what irks you about it?

I would not respect a man or woman that fought in WW2 if they were responsible for the deliberate slaughter of thousands of innocent children.

But isn't that what happened with the dropping of two atomic bombs, fire bombings, blanket bombings, napalm bombing of non-military targets. Do these crimes-against-humanity just get brushed aside as "the end justifies the means". And why execute someone like Saddam Hussein for his crimes-against-humanity yet allow Henry Kissinger to get away with his similar crimes-against-humanity. Surely they're double standards, just as the use of torture being condoned if one does it, yet condemned if an opponent does it.

[mitty]

Consider a modern example: How can we respect the men and women that fought in WW2? Easy, they are the reason we are free today. That's what it boils down to for me.

I honestly think this as close to a complete rebuttal as is needed. What is missing or what irks you about it?

I would not respect a man or woman that fought in WW2 if they were responsible for the deliberate slaughter of thousands of innocent children.

Context is the only thing missing and you aren't allowing for it. The innocent children that died in all the cases being discussed are tragic consequences of what was occurring. You just don't accept the context. As for me I do forgive and give thanks for those that did what was needed so that we may be free.

No, I don't go along with that. It's one thing if this is collateral damage from military targets, but it's another if you deliberately target innocent civilians then it's a crime-against-humanity in the same way that Joshuas' were. I say that despite my father being a POW at Fukuoka 17 near Nagasaki and that there were plans to execute all POWs. There were other alternatives to demonstrate those two bombs. I wonder if you say the same thing about the Vietnam civil-war and if Henry Kissinger had got his way and Hanoi had been nuked, just to save face.

[Wootah]

No, I don't go along with that. It's one thing if this is collateral damage from military targets, but it's another if you deliberately target innocent civilians then it's a crime-against-humanity in the same way that Joshuas' were. I say that despite my father being a POW at Fukuoka 17 near Nagasaki and that there were plans to execute all POWs. There were other alternatives to demonstrate those two bombs. I wonder if you say the same thing about the Vietnam civil-war and if Henry Kissinger had got his way and Hanoi had been nuked, just to save face.

Those nukes saved 100000s of lives in a protracted war. They also saved Japan from the USSR.

[mitty]

No, I don't go along with that. It's one thing if this is collateral damage from military targets, but it's another if you deliberately target innocent civilians then it's a crime-against-humanity in the same way that Joshuas' were. I say that despite my father being a POW at Fukuoka 17 near Nagasaki and that there were plans to execute all POWs. There were other alternatives to demonstrate those two bombs. I wonder if you say the same thing about the Vietnam civil-war and if Henry Kissinger had got his way and Hanoi had been nuked, just to save face.

Those nukes saved 100000s of lives in a protracted war. They also saved Japan from the USSR.

Where have I heard that before? Why target innocent civilians though. Why not blow the top off Mount Fuji for example? Surely that would have given the same message. And the same philosophy of targeting civilians was used in the Vietnam civil-war.

[Wootah]

Those nukes saved 100000s of lives in a protracted war. They also saved Japan from the USSR.

Where have I heard that before? Why target innocent civilians though. Why not blow the top off Mount Fuji for example? Surely that would have given the same message. And the same philosophy of targeting civilians was used in the Vietnam civil-war.[/quote]

The Japanese were crazy is the short answer. They needed an act that would break their will.