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?

[Hobbes]

1) So, all of them tried to seduce the Israelite men?
2) So, because Israelite men lacked self-control, the Midianites had to die?
3) Seducing someone to have sex with you is worthy of not just death, but the extinction of your family?

You might want to reread the book. You may also want to reread my posts for a refresher. All my comments will assume you've done that. It's an inappropriate waste of time for me to rehash what I've already said in order to respond to your points that you would have no reason to make if you read what I've said so far.

Anyway, on to the reply.

Your 3 rhetorical questions are either irrelevant, inaccurate, or both.

There are so many problems with this.

Yes there are. And you introduced those problems with your deductions.

But he didn't destroy all the men of Israel, their children and their wives. So it's cool for just the specific Israelite men to bear their sin alone, but the entire Midianite civilization has to be annihilated. This is not a just god.

As far as the temption of the men away from God goes, God judged all participants, Midianite and Jew alike. All were given the death penalty. No genocide there.

The entire Midianite civilization was not wiped out. This particular Midanite city was attacked. The Midianites who chose to flee were allowed to flee; those who remained to fight were killed. This was done as a response to what the Midianites first did to the Israelites. The first and foremost Commandment of the Old Testament was not to worship false gods. The Midianites intentionally set out to lure the Israelites into breaking this foremost Commandment. In addition there apparently was a serious, threatening, disease or "plague" among the Midianites. What was done to the Midianites was done as a protective act. God was protecting His adopted children. Perhaps you would would not exterminate those who would otherwise kill your children. If so, most people--and God--disagree with your position.

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.

1) Where does the Bible say that would happen, and that this was the justification for their murder.

The bible doesn't say one way or the other. Believers, including bible scholars, agree that this was probably the reason; skeptics believe it was a callous murder carried out by a God that apparently enjoys killing innocent kids. I assume you're in group #2. In that case I can ask you the same thing. Where does the bible say God ordered the deaths of the male children as an arbitrary act or to satisfy some lust He has for the death of innocents?

2) You still have not addressed the question of adopting those small enough not to remember their previous civilization. Even newborns, babies, and toddlers were slaughtered. Were they genetically evil? Did they lack free will? And if either of these things is your contention, what is your Biblical support for it?

See above. Only the males... let's not accidentally mislead everyone into thinking it was anything else.

So there is no free will. If God knows what they will do before they do it with absolute certainty, then they cannot change their path. They therefore lack free will.

This is for another thread but it's a matter of debate as to whether you lose your free will if someone knows what you'll do before you do it. Do psychics rob everyone involved in their visions, of their free will?

I thought free will was a central tenet of the Christian faith, and the only way to justify any of the punishments that God inflicts.

A central tenet? Hardly. Free will is a matter of harsh debate within the Christian church. And your idea of free will, that man has absolute full control in all his moral decisions -- is otherwise known as Pelagianism and was declared heresy.

In fact, the position of many Protestant Christians is practically the opposite of what you suggest. Many Protestant Christians believe that faith is granted by the grace of God, not by man's own choices using free will. Other Protestant Christians believe faith is a choice - but God knows ahead of time whether we will believe so He graces those He knows will respond accordingly. See Augustianism vs. Semi-Pelagianism. In my self-description to the left, I say I am a Reformed Christian, which puts me on the side of Augustianism. I don't believe free will plays a part in saving faith whatsoever.

And if, indeed, the Midianites had no free will, then it would not be damaging at all for God to just intervene and change their minds and make them nice, respectful Israelites. But if they do have free will, then you have to face the fact that many of those male children would not ever have rebelled, and were brutally killed in cold blood.

Wow! So you've made this a matter of free will, and you've got both bases covered. If they didn't have free will it's not fair, and if they did have free will it's not fair.

You're raising questions that go far beyond the conquest of the Midianites. An easier question would be, why has God decided to go through all these gyrations--when He knows how it's all going to end up? Why create mankind at all if you are going to end up punishing much of it?

Your asking things that the bible doesn't answer. Believers accept that God did all this for His own personal pleasure. God could have instead just created a bunch of believers and immediately established Heaven where we would all reign and coexist peacefully. It's obvious God prefers otherwise. Though like I said, I don't intend to ask God about His thought-process in Numbers 31 when I see Him, I probably will ask Him why He did all this. I'm as curious as you are.

1) There is no Biblical source for this.
2) Maimonides was writing about two millenia after this was supposed to have happened, and was himself an apologist. His testimony alone is not evidence of any such ancient tradition or policy.
3) Even if true, it doesn't justify the murder of defenseless children.

Maimonides pointed out that when the bible says "As instructed by God," the 3-corner attack of a city was the traditional way it was done.... and though the bible doesn't spell it out word for word, it does explain why the Midianites surface again later in the bible. It's obvious the entire Midianite civilzation was not wiped out. Your 3rd point is an ad nauseum repeat already addressed more than once. I'm tempted to use one of your tactics, i.e. "There's no biblical support for your claim that the children were defenseless."

Yet another inconsistency in the Bible. And if some survived, it was not for lack of trying on the part of the Israelites.

The bible doesn't say every Midianite was killed so the only inconsistency here is your claim of it. Your 2nd statement is biased conjecture, nothing else.

It isn't justified by a longshot, even within the narrow confines of your scripture.

It is completely justified within the confines of Scripture.

Yes, their horrific ability to force men to have sex with them and sacrifice in front of pagan idols...or, no, the Israelite men still had their free will. And making those choices doesn't seem worthy of death for either party. And it certainly doesn't justify the attempted annihilation of an entire culture.

Yes, ok. I get it. You don't have to repeat that over and over again. It's already been addressed above.

Men who lack free will seems to be a running theme here.

Addressed above.

To protect others from the nefarious wiles of women who don't share your religion, you would destroy a civilization. God doesn't change, so is this just to this day? If I become a Christian, and a son of mine goes off to marry a Hindu and converts, can I kill him and her entire family? Is that just? Am I, thereby, "protecting people?"

Whether or not God changes, is completely irrelevant to this discussion. It never was and still isn't just for you to kill anyone like you describe. But... either you already knew that or... you've got a lot of reading and catching up to do.

[Wootah]

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.

Hmm!! That's new, I don't recall that Jesus ever claimed that he was a god. Certainly, his own family including his own mother didn't recognise or acknowledge anything extraordinary about their brother and son. Nor did the people of Nazareth who he grew up with. Don't you think that they (including Jesus himself) would've been in better position to judge if this man was divine instead of someone living two millenia later. Other eye-witnesses described him as a drunkard and he was probably also a homosexual (John 13:23-5, 19:26 21:20).

Mitty as a free person you can post what you wish but if a thread is to have relevance then one is at times obliged to accept premises. Now if we are to understand how a Christian faces numbers 31 then you are hearing my answer. If you are then compelled to attack those premises it reflects more that you find my answer satisfactory and that you must attack the premises. With all due respect that is probably all I can hope for in a thread.

[Wootah]

And here we go with the irrelevant analogies which Christian Hell-believers have to resort to in apparently successful attempts to convince themselves that eternal torture can ever be made compatible with love.

Let's find out.

Wootah, I will once again present you with the same challenge I've given to every Hell-believer I've come across, and which none has been able to take up.

OK ...

I challenge you, in your analogies, to take into account the relevant parameters of torture for beliefs or lack thereof.

The torture/pain of Hell is the separation from God. I fully recoil from that punishment and question it. In fact I recoil from most of the disgusting things in the Bible but I have come to accept that God wants to me eye wide open. I am afraid more not of the disgusting things in the Bible but what will happen if we look away from what we are and what we are capable of.

I absolutely, 100% guarantee that you will not be able to do so, because it would undeniably expose to you the horrible reality of the deity you worship.

OK.

Observe.

OK.

Once again, it's meaningless to say that those who don't even believe in the existence of YOUR specific deity have "chosen" Hell, but let's set that aside for a moment.

Nothing here.

If someone told you, a guitar player, that they would torture those who didn't play the guitar, would you think that the person telling you this is good?

I fully believe that without a good God then there would be no possibility of heaven. I understand that the sanctuary that allows the guitar player requires Hell.

THAT is the issue at hand, not distractions about leaving people behind because they "choose to be tortured eternally" - an absurd notion if I've ever seen one.

I fully believe that over the course of eternity you would learn what you are. Were any of us in charge we would create hell. That is why I prefer democracies, am anti-socialist and prefer free markets and competition. It simply makes it harder for individuals to hold onto power and create hell on earth.

Has nothing to do with anything. Enjoy being "saved" all you want, your deity concept remains the essence of pettiness and infinite cruelty, and you remain a supporter of these.

It has everything to do with specifically talking to wonderer and his post. I don't mind you posting your thoughts of course.

Why? Because it's a MASSIVELY irrelevant analogy which unsurprisingly doesn't take into account torture for beliefs or lack thereof.

Again, in context to wonderer it is relevant because my reading of his post is that he felt it unjust that some were going to hell. But by simple analogy we know that just because some kids don't study that it is cultural suicide to pass all the kids.

More irrelevance.

Would you imprison someone eternally if you could?

Your question fails because we have no experience of eternity. My analogies succeed because within the scope of what we know we would lock people up for their natural lives. There are some criminals now today for whom it simple asks to much of my credulity to agree to release them. The whole Christian argument is that we are made in the image of God and from within our image we can agree with the notions of heaven and hell. We live and practise heaven and hell daily.

Can we torture people in prisons and call this good?

Are prisons not torture by their very nature?

Tell me, how does ANY decent concept of justice entail extended (nevermind ETERNAL) torture except in the minds of people who already believe in an invisible torturing tyrant and hope to gain favor from "him"?

The answer lies in unravelling what you think justice is. I would predict one of two outcomes, either our views of justice will be the same and then that shows that a proper view of justice is possible from my beliefs or I bet we would find something worse than the Christian view of justice. If we found something better then that would mean something against the truth of Christianity of course.

Yes, because only those who believe in JESUS are "good", and all the rest deserve eternal torture.

Reply to the quote. Don't just use it as a launching pad for your next straw man.

There is no justice or love in your God concept, only cruelty and vanity.

Anyway I hope I replied to your post.

[mitty]

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.

Hmm!! That's new, I don't recall that Jesus ever claimed that he was a god. Certainly, his own family including his own mother didn't recognise or acknowledge anything extraordinary about their brother and son. Nor did the people of Nazareth who he grew up with. Don't you think that they (including Jesus himself) would've been in better position to judge if this man was divine instead of someone living two millenia later. Other eye-witnesses described him as a drunkard and he was probably also a homosexual (John 13:23-5, 19:26 21:20).

Mitty as a free person you can post what you wish but if a thread is to have relevance then one is at times obliged to accept premises. Now if we are to understand how a Christian faces numbers 31 then you are hearing my answer. If you are then compelled to attack those premises it reflects more that you find my answer satisfactory and that you must attack the premises. With all due respect that is probably all I can hope for in a thread.

So you consider claiming Jesus was a god is an acceptable premise when the gospels indicate otherwise. Hmmm! And I wonder if Jesus actually thought about Moses' and Joshua's atrocities anyway, or did he just accept them as the way mobs of people with conflicting cultures behaved towards one another.

As for Numbers 31 and trying to put it into today's context. If he's not executed for his crimes-against-humanity, what do you think Gaddafi's memoirs might say? Would he, like Moses and Joshua, also say that his atrocities were inspired by the same bronze-age god - and also just like the crusaders and the inquisitors and today's suicide bombers?

[EasternSP]

Hmm!! That's new, I don't recall that Jesus ever claimed that he was a god. Certainly, his own family including his own mother didn't recognise or acknowledge anything extraordinary about their brother and son. Nor did the people of Nazareth who he grew up with. Don't you think that they (including Jesus himself) would've been in better position to judge if this man was divine instead of someone living two millenia later. Other eye-witnesses described him as a drunkard and he was probably also a homosexual (John 13:23-5, 19:26 21:20).[/quote]

Those are some pretty harsh statements there Mitty. Do you reflect on the point of homosexuality to try and aggrevate Christians? but to answer your statement that you don't recall Jesus ever saying he was God, I will presume you mean you don't recall reading that in the bible because I doubt you have ever actually heard Jesus. Off the top, Mary seemed to think there was something going on from the time she went to visit her cousin Elisabeth Luke 1:41 and later in Luke 2:19 where Mary kept and pondered the events in her heart. I think the point was that they believed what the spirit told them about the child and who he was.
Here are a few verses to consider in light of your statement about not recalling Jesus saying he was God.
Mat 7:21-23
Mat 12:6
Mat 13:24-30
Mat 14:33
Mat 21:15,16
Mat 23:37
and those are just in the book of Matthew.

As far as his family or close neighbors considering him God, I would recall the idiom, "Familiarity breeds contempt". Now I don't think there was outright contempt for Jesus but probably disbelief, just as you have disbelief despite large amounts of testimony. It's your ability to choose what you want to believe or disregard. In addition to the idiom, Jesus didn't start his ministry until he apparently left home so the fearing him as God probably wasn't considered when he was an addolescent. Obviously, the credibility of Jesus was not established 2000 years after his walk on earth.

[/quote]
As for Numbers 31 and trying to put it into today's context. If he's not executed for his crimes-against-humanity, what do you think Gaddafi's memoirs might say? Would he, like Moses and Joshua, also say that his atrocities were inspired by the same bronze-age god - and also just like the crusaders and the inquisitors and today's suicide bombers?[/quote]

I think we have provided sufficient background on what Num 31 was about. If you don't believe the bible as credible in the first place, then Numbers 31 shouldn't be of any concern to you.

[jatkins]

Just a quick response, I have to go to bed. But, I'm in a better mood today, so hopefully I won't be quite as snarky.

You might want to reread the book. You may also want to reread my posts for a refresher.

Nonresponsive. Unless every single Midianite woman participated in the seduction of the Israelite men (which is pretty unlikely, as there were tens of thousands of them--just look at the number of distributed slaves afterward--including, actuarially, probably several thousand elderly) the murder of every woman of childbearing age cannot be justified by the crimes of their sisters. Second, you assume that sexual seduction and causing an Israelite to convert is a crime justifiably worthy of death, which I cannot condone. Now, I recognize that you believe, on faith, that God would only have done this if He believed there was no other option. And I'm not a sand-castle kicking Atheist necessarily--I don't necessarily hold to the narrative that religion is a bad thing. But leaving aside that God is omnipotent and could have done whatever else He wished, can you at least see how difficult it is for someone to see this as moral if they do not already believe that all of God's actions are inherently moral?

Yes there are. And you introduced those problems with your deductions.

Also nonresponsive. And kind of mean, but I guess I sort of deserve that for the tone of my last post, which was, perhaps, a little snide. Sorry about that.

As far as the temption of the men away from God goes, God judged all participants, Midianite and Jew alike. All were given the death penalty. No genocide there.

The problem here is twofold:
1) Punishing somebody with death for having sex with someone outside their tribe and observing their customs is something I see as inherently unjust.
2) The punishments dished out to the Midianites were orders of magnitude more severe that those dished out to the Israelites; among the Israelites, only those directly responsible paid. Among the Midianites, the whole civilization did.

The entire Midianite civilization was not wiped out. This particular Midanite city was attacked.

This is actually an interesting question of interpretation of the scripture. Numbers 31 is pretty stark, and uses absolute terms to describe the destruction of the Midianites. On the other hand, stories that happen chronologically later in the narrative do contain a group of malefactors called the Midianites. There are a bunch of apologia on this and other apparent Biblical inconsistencies. I personally think that the most Biblically consistent interpretation is that the later Midianites were the new inhabitants of the land of Midian (after which the Midianites were named) after the Israelites destroyed the people who were there before. This interpretation gives absolute effect to all the words of the text. They could have been Moabites (who were associated with the Midianites) by birth.

In the end, it's not relevant to our disagreement, because I don't believe it's relevant to the question of the inherent justice of the Israelites' actions: I only think that it speaks to the scope of their warcrimes.

What is certain is that it was not just one city, so speaketh the KJV:

31:7 And they warred against the Midianites, as the LORD commanded Moses; and they slew all the males.

31:8 And they slew the kings of Midian, beside the rest of them that were slain; namely, Evi, and Rekem, and Zur, and Hur, and Reba, five kings of Midian: Balaam also the son of Beor they slew with the sword.

31:9 And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones, and took the spoil of all their cattle, and all their flocks, and all their goods.

31:10 And they burnt all their cities wherein they dwelt, and all their goodly castles, with fire.

You are welcome to make whatever arguments you want, but that doesn't sound like a war limited to a single village.

The Midianites who chose to flee were allowed to flee; those who remained to fight were killed.

The Bible provides no support to the assertion that the Midianites were given the chance to flee, but even if they were: their city was under attack. Would you give up the city you and your family helped to build because your neighbors were pissed that some of your women had seduced some of their men? Would it be just for you to be forced to?

Moreover, it makes little sense that the Midianites would be allowed to flee if they chose. If the Israelites had just let whoever wanted to leave, then the people who aggrieved them could have gotten off without punishment. It would have allowed the chance that their God would be denied His vengeance, which would have been irreligious. Further still, there is no narrative in the Bible suggesting they laid siege and then waited for anyone to leave, which one would assume there would be, given that it would be a natural detail demonstrating the proper way to conduct a war. Finally, they burned all the Midianite cities and dwellings. Where were they supposed to go?

Maimonides was doing his best to justify something that his faith felt it was hard to reconcile, and I think he may have entirely made up the whole three corners thing, or attributed a far more modern tradition to ancient peoples.

This was done as a response to what the Midianites first did to the Israelites. The first and foremost Commandment of the Old Testament was not to worship false gods. The Midianites intentionally set out to lure the Israelites into breaking this foremost Commandment.

Violation of this commandment, no matter how foremost, does not earn the violator a genocidal war against her people today, right? We recognize that it would not be okay for Pakistan to start a war with India over this, right? Why was it okay then?

In addition there apparently was a serious, threatening, disease or "plague" among the Midianites.

The plague was sent by God, was among the Israelites (I can't find anything saying it was among the Midianites, and if it were among the Midianites they never would have taken the female children as captives), and had already ceased after Aaron killed the sinning Israelite man and Midianite woman (Numbers 25), which is how we know that God is the source of the plague--propitiating Him ends it immediately. The plague cannot justify God's war because He inflicted it for the Israelites' lack of faith, an act which is another one I would contend is monstrously immoral. He could have simply lifted the plague rather than force the Israelites to murder the Midianites at gunpoint to satisfy his vanity.

What was done to the Midianites was done as a protective act. God was protecting His adopted children.

Quite the opposite. If it was protective at all, it was done to protect the Israelites from the violent retribution of their jealous God.

Perhaps you would would not exterminate those who would otherwise kill your children. If so, most people--and God--disagree with your position.

Where the passage saying that the Midianites killed or tried to kill so much as one Israelite child?

Where does the bible say God ordered the deaths of the male children as an arbitrary act or to satisfy some lust He has for the death of innocents?

It is the only logical conclusion for the murder of babies and toddlers who could have been raised by the Israelites without ever learning of or remembering their heritage. You can't take revenge if you don't know you've ever been wronged. Moreover, see below on the free will stuff.

See above. Only the males... let's not accidentally mislead everyone into thinking it was anything else.

Killing male babies is bad enough, I think.

This is for another thread but it's a matter of debate as to whether you lose your free will if someone knows what you'll do before you do it. Do psychics rob everyone involved in their visions, of their free will?

1) Yes.
2) Good thing there are no psychics.

It doesn't eliminate the illusion of free will, but if the future is set in stone then my choices are predetermined and therefore only seem voluntary. Any choices that I am not predestined to make are irrelevant, as I will never, ever take them. History and human life is effectively a film, only seeming to be interactive. I'm glad quantum randomness means I don't have to believe that yet.

A central tenet? Hardly. Free will is a matter of harsh debate within the Christian church.

Conceded, though I would contend that the majority of modern Christians largely believe that they are responsible for their moral choices. Concordantly, those choices must be made freely. Moreover, without free will, justice cannot exist, as no one's actions are their own.

Finally, even if free will is not sufficient to achieve salvation, it must at least be sufficient to choose between good and evil actions. If the Midianite young men could not make any such choice, why could God not have simply altered them so that they could? Why would God have made them to fail Him to begin with? Why was the murder of the defective people He created the only option for an omnipotent God?

Wow! So you've made this a matter of free will, and you've got both bases covered. If they didn't have free will it's not fair, and if they did have free will it's not fair.

That's both snide and nonresponsive. It's called a double-bind. It means that I can't see how any logical interpretation of the question of the Midianites' free will justified God's actions.

Maimonides pointed out that when the bible says "As instructed by God," the 3-corner attack of a city was the traditional way it was done....

According to him, an apologist writing two millennia (why does spellcheck think "millenniums" is a word and "millennia" is not?) after the alleged fact. See above for why I don't think that's consistent with scripture. Maimonides and others practiced schools of exegesis that saw beyond the literal text for deeper moral teachings and meanings. That was at least in part because of the difficulties that they had with stuff like this.

It seems pretty obvious that the term "as instructed by God" was simply to make it clear that Moses was acting with God's authority, not just his own. I see no reason to attribute it another meaning.

and though the bible doesn't spell it out word for word,

It doesn't just not spell it out. The Bible doesn't say one word about it. Not a single word.

it does explain why the Midianites surface again later in the bible. It's obvious the entire Midianite civilzation was not wiped out.

There are plenty of other theories on this, some of which do not add words to or delete words from scripture like yours does. But read the chapter: it's a war against the people of Midian, not just one city, so it seems like the Israelites tried to kill them all.

Your 3rd point is an ad nauseum repeat already addressed more than once.

Addressed, perhaps, but never outweighed. I repeat it to remind you of the burden.

I'm tempted to use one of your tactics, i.e. "There's no biblical support for your claim that the children were defenseless."

I use that "tactic" when you assume something not in the text.

Moreover, there is Biblical support for my claim. The women, boys, and girls were prisoners of war. Their warriors had been killed. They were surrounded by an army of 12,000 armed Israelites. They were then killed (boys and women) and enslaved (girls) at will, without any hint of further fighting or bloodshed in the text. That sounds pretty defenseless to me. Do you disagree?

Whether or not God changes, is completely irrelevant to this discussion. It never was and still isn't just for you to kill anyone like you describe. But... either you already knew that or... you've got a lot of reading and catching up to do.

I don't think that's an answer to the question. Let's rephrase it, to compare it to a specific act from Numbers 25, just before the Israelites go to war. If I were a Christian, and I saw one of my neighbor's kids (who I also knew to be Christian) running around with a Hindu girl and worshipping at Hindu temples, would it be just for me to do what Aaron did in basically that situation and pick up a javelin and spear them both with it? I think we would both agree the answer is no.

Off to bed. Good night everyone.

[Goat]

Just a quick response, I have to go to bed. But, I'm in a better mood today, so hopefully I won't be quite as snarky.

You might want to reread the book. You may also want to reread my posts for a refresher.

Nonresponsive. Unless every single Midianite woman participated in the seduction of the Israelite men (which is pretty unlikely, as there were tens of thousands of them--just look at the number of distributed slaves afterward--including, actuarially, probably several thousand elderly) the murder of every woman of childbearing age cannot be justified by the crimes of their sisters. Second, you assume that sexual seduction and causing an Israelite to convert is a crime justifiably worthy of death, which I cannot condone. Now, I recognize that you believe, on faith, that God would only have done this if He believed there was no other option. And I'm not a sand-castle kicking Atheist necessarily--I don't necessarily hold to the narrative that religion is a bad thing. But leaving aside that God is omnipotent and could have done whatever else He wished, can you at least see how difficult it is for someone to see this as moral if they do not already believe that all of God's actions are inherently moral?

There is another factor here. What about the children? Little girls are innocent.

[mitty]

Hmm!! That's new, I don't recall that Jesus ever claimed that he was a god. Certainly, his own family including his own mother didn't recognise or acknowledge anything extraordinary about their brother and son. Nor did the people of Nazareth who he grew up with. Don't you think that they (including Jesus himself) would've been in better position to judge if this man was divine instead of someone living two millenia later. Other eye-witnesses described him as a drunkard and he was probably also a homosexual (John 13:23-5, 19:26 21:20).

Those are some pretty harsh statements there Mitty. Do you reflect on the point of homosexuality to try and aggrevate Christians? but to answer your statement that you don't recall Jesus ever saying he was God, I will presume you mean you don't recall reading that in the bible because I doubt you have ever actually heard Jesus. Off the top, Mary seemed to think there was something going on from the time she went to visit her cousin Elisabeth Luke 1:41 and later in Luke 2:19 where Mary kept and pondered the events in her heart. I think the point was that they believed what the spirit told them about the child and who he was.
Here are a few verses to consider in light of your statement about not recalling Jesus saying he was God.
Mat 7:21-23 maybe
Mat 12:6 no
Mat 13:24-30 no
Mat 14:33 no, comments of others
Mat 21:15,16 no, unless somehow referring to Ps 2:7
Mat 23:37 no, unless the other prophets are also sons of god
and those are just in the book of Matthew.

As far as his family or close neighbors considering him God, I would recall the idiom, "Familiarity breeds contempt". Now I don't think there was outright contempt for Jesus but probably disbelief, just as you have disbelief despite large amounts of testimony. It's your ability to choose what you want to believe or disregard. In addition to the idiom, Jesus didn't start his ministry until he apparently left home so the fearing him as God probably wasn't considered when he was an addolescent. Obviously, the credibility of Jesus was not established 2000 years after his walk on earth.

Since the gospels were written decades after the crucifixion when most witnesses would be dead, it is hard enough to look at the credibility of those claims. But the details of this man's conception and birth over three decades even before that becomes silly when any witnesses, if any, would've been well rotted in their graves. That's just a fanciful story to try to match up with some OT prophecies and the story in Matthew and Luke don't match up anyway. And Luke 3:23 indicates his biological father may have been Heli's son, presumably based on eyewitness accounts of a relationship between Heli's son and Mary (daughter of Joachime & Anne) which was somewhat more than platonic.

There are other biblical characters who were also referred to as sons of god (Luke 3:38 Ps 2:7) although I suspect David's writing was a bit of grandstanding as the top dog, since he was a murdering adulterer who was probably also bi-sexual (2Sam 1:26, 1Sam 18:1-4, 19:2, 20:30-33, 20:41) and probably a nasty bit of goods like most kings or tribal heads. What's surprising about Jesus being a homosexual? Afterall he was susposedly an unmarried Jewish man in his thirties during a time when Jewish men were normally married. The reference in John indicates he had a special relationship with a particular disciple which was different to the relationships he had with his other male acquaintances, and if he existed, then aside from the mythical depictions of him, there was a real live man with normal urges etc and who may have also had an alcohol problem as indicated by eyewitness accounts. His family and the people of Nazareth along with all but a tiny handful of followers rejected him. So I go along with the majority of witnesses since I wasn't there to confirm the mis-givings of his own family and most others. To accept otherwise, is just a leap of faith.

[Hobbes]

I think we have provided sufficient background on what Num 31 was about. If you don't believe the bible as credible in the first place, then Numbers 31 shouldn't be of any concern to you.

Amen, bro. Amen.

[bernee51]

I think we have provided sufficient background on what Num 31 was about. If you don't believe the bible as credible in the first place, then Numbers 31 shouldn't be of any concern to you.

Amen, bro. Amen.

Whether or not it is credible or not is not the issue, it is whether folks out there BELIEVE it is credible and how that sits with other professed beliefs and accepted moral behaviour.

It is also somewhat instructive to observe the Olympic standard hermeneutic gymnastics undertaken in order to arrive at a justification for behaviour that in (any) other circumstances woud be considerd barbaric.