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?

[Wootah]

I prefer to honor the tradition of my people. Is that a good enough reason for you? If not, who are you to demand a better one?

I'm just Debating Christianity & Religion. It seems sufficient enough.

I disagree strongly, but that is an entirely different debate. I dont feel obligated to rehash it here for the 100th time. You wanted my reasons, and Im giving them to you.

I'm fine with facing those reasons in other threads.

And as you infer by taking my position there is a lot of rationalizing and thinking to do. Consider a topic. Now don't consider it. Which takes more effort. Most atheist posts are simply exercises in hoping that Christianity is something they don't have to consider.

Care to prove that claim of objective fact?

Are you asking me to measure the amount of energy it takes to consider a topic verse not considering it in order to justify my claim?

You have an unfortunate habit of claiming to know other peoples inner thoughts and values and motivations without having the faintest excuse of a reason to do so. If youre not an objectively proven mind reader, you really ought to confine yourself to making statements that you have a right to make. Your own assumptions and prejudices and stereotypes dont count.

I have no problem with the process of correction. Many people seem to get flushed out simply by them not liking being stereotyped.
(Does it really bother you? I mean it really doesn't bother me if my assumptions get corrected.)

As I've said more than once, it isn't wise to presume to "know" what another person would argue. I would say no such thing.

I'd say it's wise to try to work out what another will do but remain flexible. I often actually post that way to get more discussion into a post due to the nature of a forum.

Second, I can't conceive of how I would "lose faith" in that way. I never said that the Bible doesn't contain a substantial amount of actual history in the first place; on the contrary, I think that it probably does. I just don't think I have any warrant to make pronouncements about where it is true or to what extent.

If it's not true then it's false.

But that's the part I don't get. Why do you define "not necessarily historical" as simply "false"?

If I wrote a book on history and had not-history in it and sold the book as history then I am being false.

Thats what I mean. Do you regard the Bible as a book on history? More importantly, do you regard whatever history is in it as the most important part or aspect of it? I dont, you see.

History. History and wisdom is important. A lot of the wisdom comes from the history. I do see. Quick question: Book of exodus. Did it happen in history?

Once again; if the Bible is more than, or other than, a simple book of history, does that make it false? Why? You seem to have a hard time answering that question.

Honestly if your case can be maintained then it seems to only strengthen Christianity. I am more than happy to not have to argue history. Heck I would love to see you arguing like this against atheists. I feel that since I can defend the stricter standard then I might as well defend from there. And if all points are defensible then why not be confident in my faith?

This is just another version of the argument I have with atheists, over and over and over again: "If the Bible isn't the literal and infallible Word of God, it's nothing but a worthless pack of lies and ought to be thrown out completely." That's a false dichotomy from them, and it's a false dichotomy from you: "If you don't believe the Bible to be absolute objective fact, you must therefore believe that it's total garbage, and you cannot perforce believe in God." You're handing me the same false choice as the atheists. There are other perspectives, and my people have affirmed them for thousands of years. Some Jews are literalists; many are not. That doesn't mean that our faith is impaired or weaker or less strongly held or inferior to yours in any way.

Rather than not really I should give a better answer. I don't think it is a false choice. I feel you have retreated to your view on the Bible out of necessity. My view on the Bible is defensible as it is, real history.

I think from a theory perspective that if theory A explains more than theory B and is defensible from attacks that theory B is not then we should abandon theory B for theory A.

What if a person -- me, for instance -- regards the Bible as a book by men thinking about God? Does that make it worthless and their thoughts worthless and all the people who look at it that way atheists or heathens?

Logically it does. And I don't think I bandy the word logic about.

Try this analogy on. If the bible is about men thinking about God then that is like me locking you in a room and asking you to guess what object I have outside it. Revelation is necessary to know God.

How does your view escape this conundrum?

Thats true, and theyre wrong to do so; but dont you see that youre doing the same thing in reverse? They want to find an error and throw it out; and you want to keep from throwing it out, so you refuse to contemplate the possibility that it might contain errors!

I don't mind the errors. I do need it to be revealed. The errors do weaken it and historical errors indicate it is more likely from man than God and therefore we are back in the revelation conundrum. How many errors would have you change your view? How many parts of it do we have to call story and not fact before we are back in the revelation conundrum?

That doesnt logically follow at all. Thats like saying, Since you dont believe that Abraham Lincoln could fly it is deducible that you fear what if he could.

Well err no. But it seems a minor point for us to haggle on.

Dismissing my statement about what I feel and believe as bravado is just an arrogant insult and, again, a claim of mind reading.

Fine. I'll sincerely attempt to cut that out. It's rarely on points that matter and seems to take you . Same for the Jonah stuff. What is your interpretation of Jonah. Are you saying there is no intersection on what the story of Jonah is about?

Exactly. You reject those conceptions of God, because you do not accept them as accurate. I reject your conception of God for the same reason.

I'd like to test that if I may. Which specific part of the NT do you recall that does not fit your conception of God?

Now youre contradicting yourself. If that was in the Bible, why would you reject it?

Not at all. An alien being is not God. It would be like learning that the God of the Bible was just a man. When and if I decide that to be true I would stop being a Christian. In fact that is the crux of deciding to be a Christian or not. At one time you decided one way and currently you have decided another way.

It occurs to me as if you want your bible but not your God.

Revelation conundrum I guess.

That is a non sequitur if I ever saw one. Sounds clever, but upon examination it means nothing. Perhaps you can try to explain.

Specifically you are saying that you like the OT Bible for its wisdom about God but do not necessarily accept any of the history as history. So you hedge your bets on where God is in the Bible but do not hedge your bets on the value of the Bible.
Therefore: It occurs to me as if you want your bible but not your God.

Ill ignore that in favor of asking again; why do you think rejecting your ideas about God is the same as rejecting God?

Because mine are far more objectively true. Go back to the theory analogy for my reasoning there.

Youre still not answering the question. YOURE satisfied that the Bible is literally true; why do I have to accept your view of it as correct? Why do you think my rejecting YOUR interpretation and understanding of the Bible is rejecting God?

I think that is answered now and awaits response.

The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and the God of Moses -- as carried down in Jewish tradition. The concept is related to the Bible, but not totally dependent on it.

Revelation conundrum plus why are the revealed bits truly true and not the other bits and who is to decide. Why do I have to accept your view of it as correct? Why do you think my rejecting YOUR interpretation and understanding of the Bible is rejecting God?

Try this on. If God reveals something then that is true. If something is just history then that is true but then we must know which bits are from God and which are from man. So which is which?

Understand something: Im not trying to say that your conception of God is wrong. Im trying to understand why you think mine is, and why you apparently have no respect for it and consider my beliefs tantamount to atheism.

I just read the Bible. I am a recent convert about 5 years, and wish daily that I had read it sooner. From beginning to end the wisdom which you enjoy marvels me. It is hands down one of the most practical books for wisdom in every day life. The leap of faith to start viewing reality from that perspective comes later. Now if the book is just wisdom from man then fine. It's still worth reading but the revelation conundrum prevents us from calling it wisdom from God. And if it is wisdom from God then which bits?

On that we agree; and that is precisely why I think the God of the Bible is, in places at least, the creation of men. That God is not a good God.

Which bits were from men?

I have no objection or quibble with that at all. Im sure your own beliefs account for the discrepancies I see between the Biblical accounts and a good God as well, if in an entirely different way. I dont share that belief, but I dont sneer at it or call it false.

I just don't think we have the same usage of the word false.

I think you have to be inside a belief system to make that judgment. Judaism works for me; Christianity works for you. I think the major difference between us is that I have respect and even reverence for your religion, and you have no respect whatever for mine and classify me as a hypocritical dissembler and and an unbeliever and a threat to your religion and your God.

How then is God allowed to judge anyone that never dons his belief system?

I have respect for your religion; but I have very little respect for your attitude toward others and their beliefs. I dont think you have the right to set yourself up as the Final Arbiter of who holds sincere beliefs and who is being obstinate out of fear or sinfulness or pride.

That's cool.

Additional note: yes, reincarnation is one among many speculations in Jewish tradition about the Next Life. There is actually an allusion to it in the daily morning service -- I forget the Hebrew word, but it is in the form of in this [incarnation] or in another [incarnation].

Wow. So much to learn.

I would agree with Jrosemary that you are a bit casual and flippant in your questions and assumptions about our faith. Would you like it if I snidely asked what would happen if you cried out Jesus Christ! when you stubbed your toe? The concept is called RESPECT, and you really do have some work to do there. You dont have to believe that anothers faith is true to be respectful of it, and that would include not casually assuming that the traditions of others are mere superstitions.

I don't think God would care. Calling out to God is the best thing to do in times of pain and suffering.

On that issue. It is still not demonstrated to me that it is not a superstition. A superstition is the belief that doing or not doing something will invoke the pleasure/wrath of God. How is it therefore not a superstition? How is that not a valid point to make and raise on DC&R? I am not asking that you do or don't reply. I'll ask the next person or the next.

Are you really suggesting I don't have the right to tell an animist that what they are doing is superstition? Do you regard an animist as practicing their truth about God and so it is valid? Are atheists practicing their truth about God?

I did register JRosemary's upset and am sorry she was upset she seems quite nice. Hey you are a nice guy to and have given me a fair share of your time.

[Hobbes]

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?

Aye.

These questions are difficult because it's a lose-lose for the apologist.

I have been call cold-blooded and cold-hearted and so be it, but my personal metaphorical comparison is cutting out a malignant tumor. Now... it's God, not me, that saw the Midianites as a tumor that had to be completely destroyed in order to keep from spreading throughout the body of mankind. I can only (and I do) trust that God knew what He was doing. If I feel the need in the afterlife (which I won't) I'll ask about it. But I don't concern myself with the "why" today because I'm not going to get the answer. None better than what I just laid out, anyway.

When seen this way, it's not a crime against humanity but instead an unfortunate but necessary step to cleanse humanity.

[jatkins]

New poster here. I just wanted to say that I'm very impressed to have found a place so clearly dedicated to civil discussion of issues that are often discussed rather uncivilly. In particular, I want to thank Cnorman18 for making this thread so informative and valuable to read. I just wanted to bring the thread back to the original topic a little, because I find it fascinating.

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?

In World War 2 the forces of freedom incidentally killed civilians during the war. In Numbers 31 Moses intentionally and specifically killed the non-virgin women and male children of the Midianites after the war was over, while they were helpless prisoners and then forced the virgin women and girls into lives of sexual slavery. These are different in the same way that fighting a war is different from committing genocide and mass-rape.

I have been call cold-blooded and cold-hearted and so be it, but my personal metaphorical comparison is cutting out a malignant tumor. Now... it's God, not me, that saw the Midianites as a tumor that had to be completely destroyed in order to keep from spreading throughout the body of mankind.

So even the male babies, the very youngest, those that had not yet learned the craft of war or the ways of their fathers...they had to die? But the women, however old, who had not yet touched men--they could be allowed to live as the unwilling brides of Israelite husbands, even though some of them could presumably bring up their children to loathe God and hate the people who destroyed their civilization?

I recognize that you believe that God's actions are inherently good, and that therefore they require no explanation. Can you at least understand why this particular problem vexes those of us who are not convinced?

I can only (and I do) trust that God knew what He was doing.

So you don't understand why it was good, you just believe that it was because He did it? Consider this:

1) I say to a thoughtful Christian apologist that his God is not good.
2) He asks me why I believe this.
3) I say that his God is not good because not all His alleged actions are good.
4) He assures me that all God's actions are good.
5) I relate the story of the genocide and mass rape against the Midianites as an example.
6) He assures me that this action was good.
7) I ask him how this could possibly be.
8) He argued that the action was good because God did it, and God is good.

In short, the apologist begs the question. The thing I asked the apologist to demonstrate was that his God is good. In the above, he could only do so by assuming the conclusion (God is good) as one of his premises. This may be satisfying for those who believe God is good a priori, but it cannot satisfy anyone who does not, and cannot be taken as any kind of evidence of God's goodness.

[bernee51]

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?

While I totally respect the men and women who fought for the freedom of the world in WW2, no one was claiming that god told them to do it.

Therein lies the difference.

So you rebuttal remains a poor justification for what would now be considered a crime against humanity.

[bernee51]

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?

Aye.

These questions are difficult because it's a lose-lose for the apologist.

I have been call cold-blooded and cold-hearted and so be it, but my personal metaphorical comparison is cutting out a malignant tumor. Now... it's God, not me, that saw the Midianites as a tumor that had to be completely destroyed in order to keep from spreading throughout the body of mankind. I can only (and I do) trust that God knew what He was doing. If I feel the need in the afterlife (which I won't) I'll ask about it. But I don't concern myself with the "why" today because I'm not going to get the answer. None better than what I just laid out, anyway.

When seen this way, it's not a crime against humanity but instead an unfortunate but necessary step to cleanse humanity.

Cleanse humanity of what? A group of people that refused to believe in it? That dared to behave in a way of which it did not approve?

Murder, rape and pillage of a whole nation IS a crime against humanity.

[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?

While I totally respect the men and women who fought for the freedom of the world in WW2, no one was claiming that god told them to do it.

Therein lies the difference.

So you rebuttal remains a poor justification for what would now be considered a crime against humanity.

My point is well made that within my theological view you can for a moment understand how I relate to numbers 31. From there it is just interpretations we are quibbling over. Who knows, maybe in the future we will all be Aryans and saying the Allied Forces were wrong in WW2.

[Wootah]

In World War 2 the forces of freedom incidentally killed civilians during the war. In Numbers 31 Moses intentionally and specifically killed the non-virgin women and male children of the Midianites after the war was over, while they were helpless prisoners and then forced the virgin women and girls into lives of sexual slavery. These are different in the same way that fighting a war is different from committing genocide and mass-rape.

Actually targeting the civilian population was deemed essential to winning in WW2.

Second I think genocide is a solution. It is just to common to have enemies seek revenge. Consider all the horrible diseases we would like to eradicate. So all we have is context. Were they the good loving Midianites or the bad, evil Midianites that the Bible speaks of? And today post Jesus we show mercy because God showed mercy on us. Back then I think the main priority of God was maintaining a people of his own. So that others might one day also be saved.

Third the 'lives of sexual slavery' and 'mass-rape' claim is debatable.

[bernee51]

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?

While I totally respect the men and women who fought for the freedom of the world in WW2, no one was claiming that god told them to do it.

Therein lies the difference.

So you rebuttal remains a poor justification for what would now be considered a crime against humanity.

My point is well made that within my theological view you can for a moment understand how I relate to numbers 31.

Sure, I undertand that you hold a belief in a god that commanded 'his people' to take vengence in his name. What I don't get is the acceptance of this tribal god as a universal god.

From there it is just interpretations we are quibbling over.

I don't know how the stories in Numbers can be interpretd as anything else other than murder, kidnap and pillage when looked at from an ethical/moral point of view. It is only justified if looked at from the tribal POV of a bronze age culture.

Who knows, maybe in the future we will all be Aryans and saying the Allied Forces were wrong in WW2.

The English word Aryan is derived from the Sanskrit word rya meaning 'noble' - which I take to mean...of an exalted moral or mental character or excellence.

Humankind has and can show its nobility.

Moving beyond the divisiveness of the monotheisms will be a movement in the direction of nobility.

[bernee51]

In World War 2 the forces of freedom incidentally killed civilians during the war. In Numbers 31 Moses intentionally and specifically killed the non-virgin women and male children of the Midianites after the war was over, while they were helpless prisoners and then forced the virgin women and girls into lives of sexual slavery. These are different in the same way that fighting a war is different from committing genocide and mass-rape.

Actually targeting the civilian population was deemed essential to winning in WW2.

yes - the 'just' war.

Second I think genocide is a solution.

So did Hitler.

It is just to common to have enemies seek revenge. Consider all the horrible diseases we would like to eradicate.

Kill the diseased...that is not very christian of you.

So all we have is context. Were they the good loving Midianites or the bad, evil Midianites that the Bible speaks of?

In the eyes of whom? I wonder what the Midianites thought of themselves? Of the Israelites? of their brutal god.

And today post Jesus we show mercy because God showed mercy on us.

But not on the Midianites.

Back then I think the main priority of God was maintaining a people of his own. So that others might one day also be saved.

Or was it the other way round...the tribal god being maintained by the tribe?

Third the 'lives of sexual slavery' and 'mass-rape' claim is debatable.

31:17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
31:18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

What do you think they were going to do with the young virgins - play hopscotch?

[jatkins]

Actually targeting the civilian population was deemed essential to winning in WW2.

That may be. But that's also why I said "incidental" and not "unintentional." The purpose of bombing civilian targets was demoralization, demobilization, and economic/industrial debilitation of the enemy to end the war more quickly. Moses had already killed every man of fighting age and captured the entire rest of the population, and therefore had no such excuse. The war was over.

Second I think genocide is a solution.

It certainly is. Many terrifically immoral things are effective solutions to certain problems. Rape is a solution to someone not consenting to sex. The fact that something solves a particular problem does not make it morally justified.

It is just to common to have enemies seek revenge.

What about the male babies and toddlers who hadn't learned to fight and hadn't yet learned to loathe God who Moses murdered nonetheless, and what about the twelve and thirteen year-old girls who presumably already had learned the ways of this supposedly wicked people whom Moses nonetheless spared to later influence Israelite children. I cannot think of any way in which God's logic here makes sense.

Moreover, your almighty God doesn't need genocide to protect his chosen people, right? It's not like the Midianites could ever win a war against the Israelites unless God allowed it. Back then He still regularly intervened, so it's not like getting in the way was against his policy. If you believe in an almighty protector deity, there is no practical reason why this additional violence needed to happen.

Consider all the horrible diseases we would like to eradicate. So all we have is context. Were they the good loving Midianites or the bad, evil Midianites that the Bible speaks of?

What exactly made the Midianites evil? Some of them were merchants (Gen 37:25) who were cool with slavery, although so were the Israelites. Moses had a father in law who was one (Ex 2:15,21). One time they were so scared of the Israelites their elders tried to get Balaam to curse them (Nu 22:4-7), I guess. But the causus belli for the God and the Israelites was that the Midianite women seduced Israelite men (Numbers 25:6-18). So, to be clear: consenting sexual relations between adults of different tribes = grounds for genocide. Forcing children of other tribe to marry you after annihilating their families = divinely sanctioned.

And today post Jesus we show mercy because God showed mercy on us. Back then I think the main priority of God was maintaining a people of his own. So that others might one day also be saved.

He's an all powerful deity, right? He couldn't protect them without genocide?

Third the 'lives of sexual slavery' and 'mass-rape' claim is debatable.

Other people have responded to this already.