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?

[JehovahsWitness]

This is very informative, thank you.

You are most welcome, it is indeed an interesting topic and I'm glad my post was of help to you.

Respect,
JW

[nursebenjamin]

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

That is debatable..., but off topic.

[Sirami]

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

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

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

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

The Bible doesn't say anything about bombs of any kind so there is no double standard there.

If you're saying that the use of modern weaponry in warfare is the same as deliberately killing children after a wartime battle, well that sounds to me like you should be against modern weaponry in warfare. I think the two are a little different. I will say that modern weaponry is horrible, but I don't have a solid opinion as to the morality of using them. I will think on that more, but don't let this debate get sidetracked by it.

[Sirami]

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

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

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

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

I understand, I think.

Like JahovasWitness (the user on this forum) you believe that it is just to kill children in wartime if it is inconvenient and impractical not to.

You both believe that, even though the fighting was over and that the children (including babies) could have been taken care of by the women and children of Moses's people, that it was OK to slaughter them.

The driving factor in your thought process is that God is always in the right. Operating from that assumption, you are able to come up with this justification.

I think that's a dangerous way of thinking, but I will try my best to understand it.

[Sirami]

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

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

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

I am personally of the opinion that the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings did not need to happen. You probably already figured that out though.

Let's not jump into a debate about that though as it would derail the thread.

The Bible does not mention bombs of any kind so we do not have a clear view (or even a very fuzzy view) as to how God feels about them.

[Sirami]

I have a question.

Right now the strongest defense seems to be that when it is impractical/inconvenient to keep a child alive in wartime it is just to slaughter the children outright after battle has ended.

In the Bible there are many examples of God killing children as a punishment to the parents of the children.

That said, should abortion be seen as a bad thing if the mother or father of that child is a mortal sinner (pre-marital sex, adultry, working on sabbath and the like).

[mitty]

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

OK, so the end justifies the means and perhaps I wouldn't be writing this anywayif otherwise. But who were the goodies and who were the baddies in the Vietnam civil-war which ended in the mid 1970's and were the crimes-against-humanity by outsiders justified in that conflict.

[mitty]

I have a question.

Right now the strongest defense seems to be that when it is impractical/inconvenient to keep a child alive in wartime it is just to slaughter the children outright after battle has ended.

In the Bible there are many examples of God killing children as a punishment to the parents of the children.

That said, should abortion be seen as a bad thing if the mother or father of that child is a mortal sinner (pre-marital sex, adultry, working on sabbath and the like).

Good question, but I suspect you won't get an answer which would confirm the double standards.

[Sirami]

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

OK, so the end justifies the means and perhaps I wouldn't be writing this anywayif otherwise. But who were the goodies and who were the baddies in the Vietnam civil-war which ended in the mid 1970's and were the crimes-against-humanity by outsiders justified in that conflict.

I think this is starting to go a bit off topic... unless you are saying that actions in war are relative in terms of justice?

I'm not sure if this a defense of Moses's actions or not.

[mitty]

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

OK, so the end justifies the means and perhaps I wouldn't be writing this anywayif otherwise. But who were the goodies and who were the baddies in the Vietnam civil-war which ended in the mid 1970's and were the crimes-against-humanity by outsiders justified in that conflict.

I think this is starting to go a bit off topic... unless you are saying that actions in war are relative in terms of justice?

I'm not sure if this a defense of Moses's actions or not.

It all depends on whose perspective. If the descendants of the Midianites or Joshua's Cainanites had a written history then their story of the massacres would be different, in the same way that the Japanese have rewritten their history to cover up their atrocities.