God and the Midianites

[Angel]

Questions for debate:

1. Did God want the Midianites dead because of His vengeance ONLY (as Autodidact stated)?


Some views already offered to this question...

btw, what was the reason the Bible gives for all this slaughter? Vengeance.
"The LORD said to Moses, 2 “Take vengeance on the Midianites for the Israelites."

So I think what we learn from these passages is that God is vengeful. Also, everyone born into a tribe is responsible for the actions of that tribe, however long before they themselves were born.

Link to comment..
Post #3 t here to see where Autodidact makes this claim).

My view is that God's vengeance was involved but ALSO the WRONG acts of the Midianites. I defended this view here in post #3, 5, and 13.

What say everyone else?

[Autodidact]

I see nothing wrong in asking questions even if you see no reason to. It's no different than atheists bringing up the problem of evil argument which the killing of babies would fall under. I ask just in case someone wants to offer a reason and defend why it's justified.

What about you? Do you think it's justified?

[Angel]

I see nothing wrong in asking questions even if you see no reason to. It's no different than atheists bringing up the problem of evil argument which the killing of babies would fall under. I ask just in case someone wants to offer a reason and defend why it's justified.

What about you? Do you think it's justified?

All is either unknown or unknowable since we have no verifiable/proven way to truly know anything. So in an objective sense, the answer to your question is I don't know. If I apply it relatively, going by biblical standards killing babies is not justified if babies have done no wrong. In our Western societal legal system, killing babies is not justified since it would be 'murder'.

[Autodidact]

I see nothing wrong in asking questions even if you see no reason to. It's no different than atheists bringing up the problem of evil argument which the killing of babies would fall under. I ask just in case someone wants to offer a reason and defend why it's justified.

What about you? Do you think it's justified?

All is either unknown or unknowable since we have no verifiable/proven way to truly know anything. So in an objective sense, the answer to your question is I don't know. If I apply it relatively, going by biblical standards killing babies is not justified if babies have done no wrong. In our Western societal legal system, killing babies is not justified since it would be 'murder'.

As I say, moral questions that are easy for atheists, such as, "Is stabbing babies to death wrong?" are challenging for Christians.

I'm not asking about Biblical standards, objective standards, or whether knowledge is possible. I'm asking you, Angel, your opinion. In your opinion, is it morally o.k. to stab a baby to death?

[Paradigm]

Reading Autodidact's post, you'd be left with thinking God just wanted vengeance just for the sake of vengeance.

That is ridiculous. There is no such thing as "vengeance for the sake of vengeance." The very concept of vengeance implies retaliation for some perceived wrong. Killing for the sake of killing isn't called vengeance.

If someone rapes my girlfriend, and I track them down and bludgeon them to death, then it is fair to say that I was motivated by a desire for vengeance ONLY. The fact that there was wrongdoing on their part does not change the fact that I was motivated by a desire for vengeance. Quite to the contrary, if there were no wrongdoing or perceived wrongdoing on their part, it wouldn't be vengeance at all.

[Autodidact]

Definition of VENGEANCE
: punishment inflicted in retaliation for an injury or offense :
Merriam-Webster

Get it, Angel? God wanted to inflict punishment (genocide) on the Midianites for their offense. Their offenses were: (1) worshipping a different God (2) Having sex He prohibited.

Now can we move on? Thank you.

[Angel]

Reading Autodidact's post, you'd be left with thinking God just wanted vengeance just for the sake of vengeance.

That is ridiculous. There is no such thing as "vengeance for the sake of vengeance." The very concept of vengeance implies retaliation for some perceived wrong. Killing for the sake of killing isn't called vengeance.

If someone rapes my girlfriend, and I track them down and bludgeon them to death, then it is fair to say that I was motivated by a desire for vengeance ONLY. The fact that there was wrongdoing on their part does not change the fact that I was motivated by a desire for vengeance. Quite to the contrary, if there were no wrongdoing or perceived wrongdoing on their part, it wouldn't be vengeance at all.

I agree with your point and Autodidact's when it comes to the meaning of vengeance and how I wrongly applied it esp. in that post you quoted me on. I believe I was trying to show how God was at least justified in punishing the adults and I didn't consider that vengeance and justice (justified killings in this case) could be compatible. God judged there to be wrongdoing and through vengeance carried out justice or punishment for idolatry and prostitution. (Of course, this would not apply to the babies since they did not commit any wrongs). Such vengeance in OUR DAY would be wrong since we have law enforcement and a legal system so no one takes the law into their own hands, but I can't speak for it being wrong back in those biblical times where no such systems were in place in Israel during that time (since they had no established nation and were desert wanderers at that time) or basically God's law and judgements were the system, in a sense.

So if Autodidact is saying that this slaughter was wrong because vengeance was involved, I'd disagree with him or her. I'd say the slaughter was wrong to biblical standards when it came to the children only.

[Autodidact]

Reading Autodidact's post, you'd be left with thinking God just wanted vengeance just for the sake of vengeance.

That is ridiculous. There is no such thing as "vengeance for the sake of vengeance." The very concept of vengeance implies retaliation for some perceived wrong. Killing for the sake of killing isn't called vengeance.

If someone rapes my girlfriend, and I track them down and bludgeon them to death, then it is fair to say that I was motivated by a desire for vengeance ONLY. The fact that there was wrongdoing on their part does not change the fact that I was motivated by a desire for vengeance. Quite to the contrary, if there were no wrongdoing or perceived wrongdoing on their part, it wouldn't be vengeance at all.

I agree with your point and Autodidact's when it comes to the meaning of vengeance and how I wrongly applied it esp. in that post you quoted me on. I believe I was trying to show how God was at least justified in punishing the adults and I didn't consider that vengeance and justice (justified killings in this case) could be compatible. God judged there to be wrongdoing and through vengeance carried out justice or punishment for idolatry and prostitution. (Of course, this would not apply to the babies since they did not commit any wrongs). Such vengeance in OUR DAY would be wrong since we have law enforcement and a legal system so no one takes the law into their own hands, but I can't speak for it being wrong back in those biblical times where no such systems were in place in Israel during that time (since they had no established nation and were desert wanderers at that time) or basically God's law and judgements were the system, in a sense.

So if Autodidact is saying that this slaughter was wrong because vengeance was involved, I'd disagree with him or her. I'd say the slaughter was wrong to biblical standards when it came to the children only.

The slaughter was wrong because genocide and infanticide are immoral. Do you agree or disagree that genocide is immoral? Agree or disagree that infanticide is immoral?

It's all moral by Biblical standards. That's because Biblical standards are immoral. Today we find slavery, sexual slavery, genocide, infanticide and killing people for minor infractions to be wrong. The Bible commands and permits all of them. We have progressed far beyond Biblical morality, thank goodness.

[Autodidact]

Angel: In your view, is it right or wrong to stab a baby to death?

[Angel]

Reading Autodidact's post, you'd be left with thinking God just wanted vengeance just for the sake of vengeance.

That is ridiculous. There is no such thing as "vengeance for the sake of vengeance." The very concept of vengeance implies retaliation for some perceived wrong. Killing for the sake of killing isn't called vengeance.

If someone rapes my girlfriend, and I track them down and bludgeon them to death, then it is fair to say that I was motivated by a desire for vengeance ONLY. The fact that there was wrongdoing on their part does not change the fact that I was motivated by a desire for vengeance. Quite to the contrary, if there were no wrongdoing or perceived wrongdoing on their part, it wouldn't be vengeance at all.

I agree with your point and Autodidact's when it comes to the meaning of vengeance and how I wrongly applied it esp. in that post you quoted me on. I believe I was trying to show how God was at least justified in punishing the adults and I didn't consider that vengeance and justice (justified killings in this case) could be compatible. God judged there to be wrongdoing and through vengeance carried out justice or punishment for idolatry and prostitution. (Of course, this would not apply to the babies since they did not commit any wrongs). Such vengeance in OUR DAY would be wrong since we have law enforcement and a legal system so no one takes the law into their own hands, but I can't speak for it being wrong back in those biblical times where no such systems were in place in Israel during that time (since they had no established nation and were desert wanderers at that time) or basically God's law and judgements were the system, in a sense.

So if Autodidact is saying that this slaughter was wrong because vengeance was involved, I'd disagree with him or her. I'd say the slaughter was wrong to biblical standards when it came to the children only.

The slaughter was wrong because genocide and infanticide are immoral. Do you agree or disagree that genocide is immoral? Agree or disagree that infanticide is immoral?

You and I just disagree to a degree here.

I don't agree that genocide is wrong in all cases. If you have a whole nation of crime offenders or who aid and embed the offenders, then if you go by the Bible all of the GUILTY should face the consequences.

I believe that infanticide is wrong unless someone can give me a justified reason to show otherwise. This is the only thing I disagree with what God is said to have done or ordered.

It's all moral by Biblical standards. That's because Biblical standards are immoral. Today we find slavery, sexual slavery, genocide, infanticide and killing people for minor infractions to be wrong. The Bible commands and permits all of them. We have progressed far beyond Biblical morality, thank goodness.

Your view is biased. Conveniently you go through and only pick the morals that many would probably find objectionable, and then conclude as if that's all the biblical morals have to offer. What about to honor your parents? Don't commit adultery?, etc, etc.??

[Autodidact]

I don't agree that genocide is wrong in all cases.

(emphasis added)

What religion are you?