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?

[Board]

I don't think you understand the sheer depth of immorality of these tribes and the real danger they represented. And the sexual temptation wasn't a "might happen," it happened and that, according to the Scriptures, was the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back. Hence God's vengeance.

Depth of immorality and sheer danger from children and women? The Israelites could not control themselves so they slaughtered everyone? there was no real danger. There was bigotry and prejudice and a lack of understanding that lead to a massacre. This is as immoral of an act as any and it was commanded by god.

Vengeance is mine sayeth the Lord. Remember? God, and only God, can justly exact revenge. And that's because God knows all the facts.

Assuming god knows anything at all and/or exists at all... sure. Sounds like more rhetoric and a failed attempt to dodge the morality question. Goddidit so it must be good and right and just.

This all goes so deep. It really doesn't need that much explaining from the Christian or Jewish point of view since God tells us from the get-go, our entire race deserves not to even exist. Justice for mankind is wrath and death. Mercy for mankind is to give everyone an opportunity to be pardoned.

There is no depth here no matter how many times you try to say there is. How can justice be "wrath and death" when god is supposed to be omni-benevolent, omnipresent, and omnipotent? It is simply illogical.

I don't usually double-inlay quotes but that one was necessary. In my view, yes it is the point. The skeptic who argues against God's actions vs. the Midianites, by deafult is arguing in defense of the Midinanites and declaring their innocence at least on some level.

Again, (1) I don't think the skeptic understands the depth and magnitude of the immorality and corruption of these people, and

No depth. Women and children slaughtered. Men who could not control themselves or simply kick everyone out. Killing them is the better and moral option. There is no great magnitude of depth in this.

(2) it seems disingenuous to me that the skeptic is arguing on behalf of people they never knew, aren't related to, and probably doesn't even believe existed in the first place.

This is not disingenuous. God is believed to be good yet commands that immoral actions be taken. If the Bible is to be believed, how can anyone be expected to accept this? All we see are believers writing this off as "God knows best". There exists no moral support for these acts.

For the skeptic to argue that if God orders the killing of anyone, He is evil and immoral; I disagree. Moral absolutism is surprising coming from the typical self-professed "open minded" skeptic but that aside, it is not a moral absolute that if someone kills someone they are immoral. People in this thread have made examples. War time for one. Or how about if you are walking down an alley and you see a thug assaulting a woman at knife point. If you defend her and in the ruckus end up killing him. Are you immoral?

This is an inconsistent comparison. It is not that God order just anyone to be killed. God ordered genocide. This did not involve defending a country or a person. In the minds of the people it may have been a defensive act for their soul or some other nonsense but that is ignorance on their part. To them, someone told them that God ordered them to kill and they carried out the acts.

So getting back to the case at hand. God... owner of this playbox and rulemaker... decided for His own Holy purpose, that He would adopt a group of people to be His family. He instructed them on how to live good, peaceful, moral lives. But then there was evil all around them, corruption. To a level that even today we could hardly imagine how bad it was. And the tribes outside God's chosen were "eaten up with it" from the great grandparents all the way down to the young ones. It was so bad and these people were so corrupt and sick that they threatened the very existence of God's family. Even intermingling with them created untold dangers. Imagine an entire community of psychopathic serial killers who rape and kill anything that crosses their path. And they have leprosy. And e-bola. That might come close to describing the level of danger.

And you know this how? You are attempting to present a false dilemma in this post. Where did did the Bible say any of these assertions you are making were true? e-bola? pretty sure that is not in there...

Evidently the Midianites et al were a cancer to humanity and a threat. They had to be eliminated. At least that's God's story and so there is your explanation. I know you don't appreciate it or like it; in fact you probably hate it. But that's what God has revealed in Scripture and it was recorded to be passed down through the generations.

Any moral person would would detest this story. Any moral person would have issues with this God who commanded these acts of genocide. Justify it all you want it is simply immoral.

[jatkins]

Johnny says God is bad and immoral because God ordered the Midianites killed.
It is presumed that Johnny isn't arguing moral absolutism --that killing someone is bad and immoral in ALL cases.
Therefore it becomes clear that Johnny believes the Midianites did not deserve what they got
By presuming their innocence, Johnny is arguing on behalf of the Midianites

I'm not presuming the innocence of the Midianites, although I would be interested in seeing you explain the scriptural basis for the deep and unforgivable corruption you claim they possess. I've read the Bible, and the Midianites and Israelites were on friendly terms for a while before they fell out: Moses had a Midianite father-in-law. They went to war because some Midianite women seduced some Israelite men, which seems as much the fault of the men as the women. Because Israelite men lacked self-control, Moses destroyed a civilization.

Moreover, I do generally believe that the murder of defenseless children is wrong. No matter the sins of their parents, children still have the capacity to be reformed. In the case of the Midianite massacre, this presumably included babies who could easily have been adopted by Israelite women and raised as Israelites without ever being told anything about their heritage. How do I know there were babies? Well, there were at least 16,000 women who had not touched men (presumably girls under 12), so we can assume a like number of boys of that age. Actuarially, it is extremely unlikely that there weren't hundreds or thousands of babies and toddlers still young enough that if brought up as Israelites they would have no memory of their previous culture.

And of course, that's assuming that the Midianites were so corrupt that even the memory of them and their ways would poison the children into rebellion against Israel and God, which you haven't established. If they weren't so corrupt, this was just a horrifically brutal genocide.

Now, if any of the items above are irrational or incorrect, please enlighten me... but that is the basis that formed my "ad hominem assault" upon jatkins which really was just a colorful, complete exaggaration to make a point -- and I freely admitted it when I said it.

Ad Hominem: "to the man." A logical fallacy whereby rather engaging the argument, you try to make the other person the subject of the debate. For instance: calling into question whether I genuinely care about the suffering of others, suggesting that my distaste for Israel makes me not care about suffering in places like Darfur, etc. These points have nothing to do with the subject matter of the thread or the debate, and are instead attempts to discredit and denigrate the person you are debating. Even if everything you said was true, even if I was a heartless robot who used the suffering of others as a political football and hated Israel, pointing that out still doesn't address my arguments: even heartless robots can be right.

Do you seriously not see why this is not a useful or appropriate debate tactic? I thank you for your apology earlier, that was classy. Don't go back on it now.

Jatkins is claiming that he not only is not arguing on behalf of the Midianites, but, hardly believes they existed in the first place.

I'm sure there was some group of people that the writers of Numbers were referring to when they wrote about the Midianites, I just don't know that the Midianites were actually anything like the Bible depicts them (in which case the Biblical Midianites were fictional, or at best caricatures), or that any of these wars actually occurred.

Now please excuse me while I go look up "ad hominem" so I can better understand the charges against me.

Saved you the trouble.[/i]

[mitty]

Johnny says God is bad and immoral because God ordered the Midianites killed.
It is presumed that Johnny isn't arguing moral absolutism --that killing someone is bad and immoral in ALL cases.
Therefore it becomes clear that Johnny believes the Midianites did not deserve what they got
By presuming their innocence, Johnny is arguing on behalf of the Midianites

Imagine Hobbes, if Hitler, or Saddam Hussein, or Pol Pot or Henry Kissinger or others who've committed crimes-against-humanity had written their memoirs about those events. Don't you think their writings would describe their actions in a good light. Imagine, if like Moses and Joshua, they also blamed their atrocities on a bronze-age god, would you believe it if they were the only accounts of these events that you read? Similarly, one can see how the Japanese historians have written their WW2 atrocities out of their history. What if Hitler's memoirs said that the Jewish Holocaust was a retribution against "Christ killers" which was personally ordered by a bronze-age god. As a Christian, would you believe it, since that's the basis of Jewish persecution down the centuries. If the Midianites or Canaanites had written their accounts of Moses's and Joshua's rampages to gain territory, do you think that they would consider it was only justice dealt out by an opponants imagined god. In a modern context, do you think that it was just for the Palestinians to be dispossessed without compensation, and there are some religious extremists who also believe that that situation is an act of this same bronze-age god.

[Hobbes]

Depth of immorality and sheer danger from children and women? The Israelites could not control themselves so they slaughtered everyone? there was no real danger. There was bigotry and prejudice and a lack of understanding that lead to a massacre. This is as immoral of an act as any and it was commanded by god.

Again: The women were directly and personally involved in the sabotage upon the Israelites through sexual temptation. God's vengeance for that act fell upon the Midianite women and all the Israelite men that had sexual relations with them. As an aside, we should take note that God didn't withhold judgment from the guilty Israelites; He dispensed His judgment among both nations. As far as the male children go, once again: the idea is that if the males were allowed to live (in obvious captivity) among the Israelites, they would eventually grow up, become strong, and they would have plotted revenge against Israel. God, having infinite foreknowledge, knew this would happen; it wasn't just a guess or a decision based on probability.

Assuming god knows anything at all and/or exists at all... sure. Sounds like more rhetoric and a failed attempt to dodge the morality question. Goddidit so it must be good and right and just.

By arguing against the actions of God in the bible, His existence and omniscience must be assumed. It's ludicrous to argue based on cherry-picked information. Listen to the absurd nature of this statement: I believe the part of the bible where it says God ordered the killing of the Midianites and I hold Him accountable for this immoral, evil act. However, I don't believe the parts of the bible that say He is all-knowing, nor do I believe the parts that suggest He even exists.

You either argue against God's actions by presuming they occurred and the bible is true; or you reject the bible AND God and therefore refrain from holding Him accountable for anything at all.

Conveniently picking which verses to believe and which ones to reject renders the entire debate pointless and obviously gives you the power to make the bible say anything you want it to say.

There is no depth here no matter how many times you try to say there is. How can justice be "wrath and death" when god is supposed to be omni-benevolent, omnipresent, and omnipotent? It is simply illogical.

Because justice is good. Injustice is bad. Godly wrath and punishment of death can be just. I can think of infinite examples where man putting man to death is just. God"being as you say, omnipresent and omnipotent"would know precisely when and how severely to dispense justice.

No depth. Women and children slaughtered. Men who could not control themselves or simply kick everyone out. Killing them is the better and moral option. There is no great magnitude of depth in this.

It should be recognized that the people captured by the Israelites (the women and children) were given a chance to flee. Jewish Torah scholar Maimonides notes in his book Hilchot Melachim that the siege upon the Midianites was carried out as the Lord commanded Moses, which was the traditional way; by surrounding the city by 3 corners and leaving the 4th corner open to give those who did not want to fight, a path to flee. Not all the Midianites were killed in the battle which is obvious since the Midianites appear again later in the bible. So ostensibly the women and children taken captive chose not to flee but to stand and fight against Israel instead. Meanwhile, again, the reason for those who were put to death is clear and justified. It was done for the protection of Israel. The women had already demonstrated the damage they could inflict; and the male children"as God foreknew"would have eventually risen up and exacted revenge against Israel.

If you want to argue that killing someone to protect others is immoral, then I'll say again you are arguing moral absolutism and I need not continue if so, because that position is hardly defensible.

This is not disingenuous. God is believed to be good yet commands that immoral actions be taken.

Immoral says you, because you presume the complete innocence and harmlessness of the Midianite women and male children.

If the Bible is to be believed, how can anyone be expected to accept this? All we see are believers writing this off as "God knows best". There exists no moral support for these acts.

I'm going to great lengths to argue using logic and facts. If all you see is believers writing this off as God knows best, then maybe we should pause the debate and confirm that you are actually taking the time to read the replies to your messages.

This is an inconsistent comparison. It is not that God order just anyone to be killed. God ordered genocide.

No He didn't. He ordered the dispensation of justice among a wicked, dangerous people who threatened the future of His family.

This did not involve defending a country or a person.

That is the exact opposite of what the bible describes.

And you know this how? You are attempting to present a false dilemma in this post. Where did did the Bible say any of these assertions you are making were true? e-bola? pretty sure that is not in there...

Which is probably why I said imagine. I was making a point by using comparison and contemporary conditions, so that you might better grasp the depth of the Midianite wickedness and the real threat they represented to Israel.

The Midianites were described as deceiving, hostile toward Israel, and as a literal plague. In fact, after the battle was over, anyone who so much as touched a Midianit man or woman, was instructed to cleanse themselves thoroughly and completely and stay away from camp for 7 days. Everything taken as plunder was to be cleansed with fire. Clearly, the Midianites were a sickly, unclean people who, combined with their deceptive ways and hostility, represented a major threat to the people of Israel.

Any moral person would would detest this story. Any moral person would have issues with this God who commanded these acts of genocide. Justify it all you want it is simply immoral.

Well I can't say I literally detest the historical account. I can't think of any historical account that I detest, or feel any emotion toward whatsoever. I have feelings about historical characters within certain accounts but not toward the account itself. But anyway.... I see you're judging me as immoral? Is that one of those ad hominy attack thingies? Should I be offended?

Oh well, don't sweat it. In fact, I like hominy. Just ate a bowl last night. Golden hominy, with butter, salt, and pepper. Delicious.

Talk to you soon and thanks for the dialogue!

[wonderer]

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?

This was to prevent them from growing up as slaves under Israelite rule and eventually seeking revenge.

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?

The vast majority of "women" that were spared were young, preteen girls. In that day it was customary to marry--and lose virginity--at a very young age. The reason the women were ordered to be killed is because ostensibly through the use of sexual temptation, they intentionally lured the men of Israel away from God and into the worship of Pagan idols.

I recognize that you believe that God's actions are inherently good, and that therefore they require no explanation.

That's a little misleading. I never said God's actions don't require explanation. I only said I personally wouldn't concern myself with the events surrounding Numbers 31 if given the opportunity to speak with God.

Can you at least understand why this particular problem vexes those of us who are not convinced?

I do understand that it vexes you; however I'm doubting that the plight of the Midianites causes you--or anyone else--to lose any sleep.

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.

"Mass rape." You'll have to explain that one. Allowing a virgin to dwell among your people and marry doesn't constitute rape. Can you cite where in Numbers 31 that God instructed the Israelites to hold the enemy females down and force themselves upon them?

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.

Well I know this doesn't please you or satisfy you; but since none of us will EVER know in our lifetimes, all the circumstances surrounding every action that God undertook in the bible; it unfortunately boils down to a matter of (a) knowing God's character using a reasonable understanding of the Scriptures, and (b) faith.

Since you took the opportunity to present a mock conversation with your imaginary apologist, I will follow your lead and describe what comes to my mind when I hear a skeptic put up such a fuss about the plight of the Midianites and other tribes smote by the Israelites during the conquest of Canaan.

I wonder... if these ill-fated ancient tribes and the so-called abuse thereof bothers you so much, how you can possibly go on for even a second while--for example--the people of Darfur are treated in likewise fashion, at this very moment. Or, perhaps you really are as concerned for innocents as you contend, and you're typing your posts from your laptop, using a gas-powered generator parked alongside your tent on the front lines in Darfur? Are you typing a couple of words, reloading your magazine, firing at the rapists and murderers, then typing a couple more words, and reloading?

And that's a huge exaggaration and not meant to insult. But the point obviously is... if you are truly as concerned for the ancient tribes defeated and destroyed by Israel, then you by all means should be a hundred times more preoccupied with the real life genocide, rape, murder, and pillage that is going on just an airline ticket away. Either that or, you simply have an axe to grind against the Israelites; therefore rendering today's non-Israel-related events a lot less meaningful if not completely inconsequential to you.

Don't get me wrong; I am not calling you a hypocrite; but I have to admit. A passionate argument in favor of the so-called "innocent" ancient tribes of Canaan from the comfort of ones home is akin to someone screaming from a soapbox in the public square about the abuse and torture of cows in slaughterhouses; while eating a big juicy hamburger. There is just a hint of disingenuousness in the argument, IMHO.

Do you realize that you're only guessing as to what 'good' reasons God had for ordering the babies to be killed. You can't speak with authority as to what reasons God had for doing it. You can only speculate. The Bible doesn't explain why. Naturally you would want to think God had a good and noble reason for ordering the slaughter, because you believe in him and believe the Bible. However the problem is that those who are not followers of and believers in the God of the Bible, and therefore not needing to come up with reasons to explain away God's actions, simply observe that God's actions look cruel and unjust, and question his character as a benevolent God, which is a very reasonable question.

I've noticed that God himself in the Bible isn't defensive or apologetic about the barbaric judgements and punishments he inflicts on not only his enemies but also his own people. It's only his followers who try to pussyfoot around the fact that God is barbaric. I used to have to do that myself when I was a follower, but now I see without the blinkers what God is really like.

[mitty]

I've noticed that God himself in the Bible isn't defensive or apologetic about the barbaric judgements and punishments he inflicts on not only his enemies but also his own people. It's only his followers who try to pussyfoot around the fact that God is barbaric. I used to have to do that myself when I was a follower, but now I see without the blinkers what God is really like.

Barbaric people will create a barbaric god. When things are going well for them, they imagine their god is helping them. If things are not going so well they imagine their god is displeased with something they've done and punishing them, with the extreme being the daily sacrifices of the Aztecs to ensure the sun rises each day. So why not blame a natural disaster such as Noah's flood or earthquakes on their god's displeasure.

[Wootah]

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.

The logical chain is this:
The Old Testament is the Bible Jesus read. I believe Jesus is God. So I accept the OT Bible's version of events because of Jesus's clearly very good behavior and teachings on love. I only started to read the OT because Jesus did.

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.

It isn't even justified from a bronze age culture POV. It can only be justified from the Christian view of a wicked people receiving righteous justice. All this is grounded in the wages of sin being death. At best you can complain that their death came somewhat earlier than they expected. But morally, for anyone to be saved now we needed the Israelites to survive. Much the same is my view of the global flood.

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.

I think you missed the point of my last comment. You should have been able to recognize that in the future modern historical events may be viewed how you choose to view the Israelites in numbers. Do you recognize the point being made?

[Wootah]

Jatkins your points seem to be:

WW2 bombing - I have replied to Bernee regarding this and hope that you can see that as replying to you as well. The only valid thing you have going for your argument is that we have a better grasp of the reality of WW2 now and in that same vein you do not wish to grasp the reality of the Israelites and Midianites. I would reply, as I should when I discuss the OT in general, is that I read and interpret the OT as I do because Jesus read it and believed it.

Genocide - I have no disagreement in recoiling from the horror of such a solution. The Bible does tend to have us face awfully ugly realities.

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.

I'm willing to consider that perhaps that saved some of these toddlers from hell, I'm willing to consider that having children grow up to seek revenge is another reason, I am also willing to consider that God wanted the punishment to be total. Honestly I trust Jesus and then approach the OT.

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.

Actually my reply here is somewhat obtuse and hard to explain in a short reply. I think God works in reality. God deliberately doesn't click his fingers, he deliberately lived and endured as Jesus to deliberately die on the cross. So I find myself not surprised that God worked with an in reality punishment. Mostly we find that these events show God's power not by displaying his power but by winning against the odds.

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.

I'll have to read more on that. I googled: Who were the Midianites?

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

See my 'in reality' response.

[Wootah]

Well did Exodus happen? As far I know the biblical accounts haven't been substantiated in any way in the Egyptian records. Anyway, I understand that Egypt included most of present day Israel back then.

There is no archeological evidence to suggest that it did. I'm sure that if thousands of people and animals lived in the Sinai peninsula for decades there would be water wells, latrines, graves, charred wood, broken pottery, etc. that would be discovered.

I'd prefer those questions be left to CNorman. I believe you are quoting me asking him. Certainly they are valid questions in general.

[Wootah]

I've noticed that God himself in the Bible isn't defensive or apologetic about the barbaric judgements and punishments he inflicts on not only his enemies but also his own people. It's only his followers who try to pussyfoot around the fact that God is barbaric. I used to have to do that myself when I was a follower, but now I see without the blinkers what God is really like.

Barbaric people will create a barbaric god. When things are going well for them, they imagine their god is helping them. If things are not going so well they imagine their god is displeased with something they've done and punishing them, with the extreme being the daily sacrifices of the Aztecs to ensure the sun rises each day. So why not blame a natural disaster such as Noah's flood or earthquakes on their god's displeasure.

I tend to agree with wonderer. I don't think Christians do any justice to our faith by sugar-coating what God teaches us. Where I disagree is that I felt that by taking wonderer's position I was assuming I could do better than God.