andrewcriddle

Apart from the question of the details of a literal reading of Numbers 31 there are IMO some more general issues being raised.

A/ If one believes in a righteous and loving God in any meaningful sense then the content of a command purporting to be from God must be relevant in determining whether or not it is truly from God.

IE it must be in principle legitimate to say that this command cannot be from God because of its immoral nature.

B/ However, to some extent at least, what is right or wrong depends upon the particular circumstances of a case and although there may well be behaviour that no circumstances whatever could justify in any way, many people would be prepared in extreme circumstances to justify or excuse some pretty drastic behaviour.

Times of War are particularly likely to raise such problems.

C/ Hence if one believes in God's wisdom as well as his goodness then one has to be ready to accept that God could rightfully command in some specific circumstances behaviour of a normally forbidden nature.

(Just to clarify: the mixture of war for annihilation and war for loot in Numbers 31 is on a literal reading so ugly that I don't believe the above argument is relevant in that particular case. I'm responding to the more general issue as to how far a specific command of God could justify setting aside normal ethical and moral rules.)

Andrew Criddle

BadBadBad

And that is one of the points. What is the moral basis you would use to judge the morality of a command from God?

Well, we have a set of particular circumstances we're considering now. They are well documented in Exodus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, and Joshua. God has a promise to fulfill to Abraham. Wicked people worthy of utter destruction occupy the land God promised to the wicked stiff necked Israelites, equally worthy of utter destruction. The only difference being the promise to Abraham and Moses' prayer in DT 9. God is angry and vengeful, and declares that justice must be done. His sword is whetted and glittering, and justice must be done by the edge of the sword. Joshua has already slaughtered seven siblings. The last remaining child is standing before you begging he'll never be an Amorite again. Here is the sword. You be the judge.

By the way, what is the name of your loved one I hold with my sword against their throat?

Yes that's the point. Thou shalt not murder. Here is the sword.

Take it.

So you're saying that your answer is that you would rebel against God? You're saying that you consider your morality and sense of justice is greater than God's?

Charles Bailey

Indeed, I have heard this epistemological red herring countless times from fundies who don't seem to be too interested in giving a moment's thought to the implications of their own "Divine Command Theory" on ethics.

What I want to know is by what "objective foundation" do theists justify such atrocities as being morally permissable under any circumstances? Since the divine command theory is based on the fiat of the gods (or "God" in this case), then where do they find objectivity in this kind of arbitrariness?

Yes, and I've heard some of the most ridiculous defenses imaginable! Jason Gastrich once argued that God ordered the infants, the ederly, the young males, and all women "who have known a man" to be destroyed in order to spare them from being victimised by wandering nomads at a later time! He also argued that the killings were a demonstration of God's merciful desire to spare them the potential misery of falling victim to natural disasters and other undesireable environmental conditions! He quipped, "They didn't have rehabilitation centers back then."

To this day, despite numerous requests, Jason has refused to answer the question: what were the young virgin girls kept alive for? though he has repeatedly asserted that the passage in Numbers 31 does not imply rape.

Charles Bailey

Lee, I don't mean to be unnecessarily accusatory here, but are you really being intellectually honest with yourself? Over in the "peanut gallery" which has been set up to discuss the debate between Gastrich and Krueger on whether or not it's reasonable to believe in God, you were seen objecting to an "argument from silence" on the basis that such arguments were "weak." Now, when the situation calls for it, and the mood is just right, we have you here resorting to a type of argument you've already rejected as a matter of record! Forget the special pleading involved here, I have a question for you. Given the text below, where do you find room to speculate as to the manner of the Midianite deaths?

NUMBERS 31:
13Moses and Eleazar the priest and all the leaders of the congregation went out to meet them outside the camp.

14Moses was angry with the officers of the army, the captains of thousands and the captains of hundreds, who had come from service in the war.

15And Moses said to them, "Have you spared all the women?

16"Behold, these caused the sons of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, so the plague was among the congregation of the LORD.

17"Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man intimately.
18"But all the girls who have not known man intimately, spare for yourselves.

19"(O)And you, camp outside the camp seven days; whoever has killed any person and whoever has touched any slain, purify yourselves, you and your captives, on the third day and on the seventh day. [emphasis mine]

Anyone who reads this yarn can easily understand who is doing the killing and how the Midianites had been put to death. That is, anyone without a cherished belief in Bible-inerrancy to protect.

What drives you, Lee, to make rationalizations meant to defend the text as something other than a moral atrocity?


More special pleading! Skeptics want to know why anyone should feel morally justified in carrying out the type of orders depicted in the (hopefully mythical) tale found in Numbers 31?

Knowing what I have come to know of his character, I could never believe that such a malevolent monster really exists! Sadly, however, there are those that actually believe that such a monster exists, who are all too willing to carryout similar commands.
Thank goodness for small miracles!
This paradox of yours seems to render the words "right" and "righteous" as meaningless, incoherent, and nonsensical. One of the byproducts of your "theological" epistemology.
Simply asserting that one does not only believe but one "knows" what is theoretically unknowable is nothing more than sermonizing. How exactly do you and Peter know Jesus is the Holy One of God...much less that there in fact is a God at all? These are questions that just can't be begged in a forum of skeptics!

Would you care to defend the doctrine of Bible-inerrancy by any chance? I know someone who would love to discuss it with you.

Charles Bailey

Well, how could we determine when God is doing wrong if what is right merely equates to God's will?
You must be referring to cases where Bible-God's existence is merely taken for granted?
Really? Tell me, Lee, did God have each person's best interests in mind when he made the following statements?

GENESIS 6:7
7The LORD said, "I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky; for I am sorry that I have made them."

What do you suppose the people alive on earth in that day would have thought about God's consideration for their best interests?

EXODUS 4:21
21The LORD said to Moses, "When you go back to Egypt see that you perform before Pharaoh all the wonders which I have put in your power; but I will harden his heart so that he will not let the people go."

Given the events which were alleged to have followed from here, is it really fair to say that God had the best interests in mind for each citizen of Egypt, or were they not real persons?

Or what about the census God moved David to take of Israel? Depending on which version of the story one consider's to be the truly inspired and inerrant
Word of God:

2 SAMUEL 24:1
1 And again the anger of Jehovah was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them, saying, Go, number Israel and Judah.

or...

1 CHRONICLES 21:12
1 And Satan stood up against Israel, and moved David to number Israel.

Anyway, if the version found in 2 Samuel is the truly inerrant one, then can it honestly be claimed that God sincerely had the best interests in mind of the 70,000 Israelite men who died in a plague sent by Yahweh himself as a result of David carrying out his order to take a census?

2 SAMUEL 24:14,15
14 And David said unto Gad, I am in a great strait: let us fall now into the hand of Jehovah; for his mercies are great; and let me not fall into the hand of man.

15 So Jehovah sent a pestilence upon Israel from the morning even to the time appointed; and there died of the people from Dan even to Beer-sheba seventy thousand men.

How about some fine examples from the New Testament of this God of your's looking out for the best interests of "each person?"

MATTHEW 7:13
13"Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it.

MATTHEW 10:34-36
34 Think not that I came to send peace on the earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
35 For I came to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law:
36 and a man's foes shall be they of his own household.

LUKE 14:26
26"If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple."

MATTHEW 8:12
12 but the sons of the kingdom shall be cast forth into the outer darkness: there shall be the weeping and the gnashing of teeth.

Well, you get the idea. Personally, if the God of the Bible really does exist--and the Bible depicts it/him accurately, I'm not convinced that he is out for our well-being.


This is a strawman. And how would this question relate to whether or not killing children--or anyone for that matter--in the manner described in Numbers 31 ought to be considered a moral atrocity despite the alleged fact that God ordered the killings?

What difference does this make? What if they did hold that they were carrying out a command of God? Would their acts suddenly become morally permissible? If not, why not. That is the question.

<snipped rest>

andrewcriddle

One would judge the morality of an alleged command from God on the grounds of

a/ The moral principles available to all humans by natural reason without special revelation

b/ The moral nature and demands of God as given in previous revelation.

No I don't think so.

What I think I'm saying is that the content of an alleged command from God must IMO be one of the grounds for determining whether the command truly comes from God.

There are some commands which I don't think I could ever be persuaded really came from God but on the other hand it would be possible in principle for me to be convinced that God genuinely commanded something normally morally forbidden and if so I would believe it my duty to do so.

(As to what I would actually do in such a hypothetical and unlikely situation I don't know. There are I believe ordinary and straightforward commands from God for moral and virtuous behaviour which I often fail to keep so I doubt whether I would follow such a problematic and extraordinary command if faced with the situation.)

Andrew Criddle

BadBadBad

For Joshua, B. was what? The flood? Sodom and Gomorrah? Previous revelations of God that Joshua should kill by the edge of the sword?

How about supernatural miracles performed through the man telling you your command from God? How would that play into it? Would, for example, parting the Red Sea before your eyes perhaps convince you that perhaps these men Moses and Joshua were in fact receiving direct commands from God just like they claim? Would these miracles of God convince you of the authority of God regardless of your human interpretation of their moral content?

Do you deny that God could convince you unequivocably of his direct revelation? You know that's exactly what the authors of Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, and Joshua claim. They claim that God directly revealed his will to them. It was God's will that Joshua kill all that breath by the edge of the sword. It is this claim in particular that brings you the knowlege of the Christian God in the first place.

So which is it with respect to butchering this boy for Joshua?
Is this a command that you would not accept as being from God even through the experience of the Israelites that Moses and Joshua performed unimaginable miracles of God? Is it that or given the unequivocable direct revelation of God that Joshua and Moses are claimed to have experienced would you believe it your duty to butcher him like a goat? Please don't forget to tell me how much brutality and cruelty you would exert on him to satisfy God's vengeance.

Also, please don't forget your loved one that I hold here with my sword to their throat? Do you have a child? What is their name? Regardless of your interpretation of God's morality, how do my moral values as to your actions fit into your decision to butcher the child you hold?

According to the Bible, butchering all that breath, men, women, and children by the edge of the sword were ordinary and straightforward commands from God. They were not extordinary at the time, and as Blt to Go has pointed out, Jesus promised to return and carry on with this butchery. As a Christian, you must hope God returns within your lifetime, in which case you may very well be faced with these problematic Biblical commands.

I thought God's morality was absolute? I thought his virtue was perfect? Why is his command to butcher a child problematic? Do you deny this child's sins against God? Do you deny God's pronouncement against this child, the same as every other human, that he deserves utter destruction? Do you deny God's ability to foresee the future and make perfect decisions with respect to what is best for mankind? As a Christian, what is problematic about exectuting God's commands?

lee_merrill

Hi everyone,

But we can't have the good of overcoming evil without actual evil.

I looked at every verse in Joshua that mentions "sword" or "swords," and can't find this, even Josh. 10:40 does not say the Lord commanded a sword to be used always.

I've found these verses difficult too, but would it be insulting to scholars to show that these instructions were not brutally violent? That is what I am trying to do…

Which demonstrates that they did not think they were carrying out a command from God.

If God has the prerogative, is it then not pertinent to this discussion? For then he can exercise this prerogative, it is his prerogative.

I said I would carry out a judgment that was indeed God's will, "kill for God" is pejorative, no, I would not lie for God, or steal for God, for any command to "sin for God" would by definition not be God's will, and I said this also.

That is what I meant, though, I would be willing, but (may we hope) not eager to do this act of judgment.

I was appealing to your sense of justice, though. We put a man in jail for inflicting pain on another without cause, we do not put a man in jail for inflicting pain on himself.

That is why I quote this verse in Jeremiah, though, the weeping prophet, to show that God does not delight in the judgment of even of the most sinful people. That is context.

I would not just take a leader's word for this, I would also insist on being given a motive that was not one of cruelty, which indeed would be supernatural, which would be a way of confirming God's word on this.

This is again, writing a script. People did get taken into the nation of Israel in this time if they gave up being Amorites, they were not put to death, as in the case of Rahab (Heb. 11:31).

No cruel or brutal motive would be one requirement, and I would also subscribe to what Andrew said in response to a similar question.

No, I would not, I believe sin comes with the baby.

Because everyone actually dies, God has knowledge we do not have, about the time and manner of death.

For being household servants or wives, I would expect.

But an argument from silence is when we are making a firm conclusion, not proposing a possibility. If you are saying it is impossible that there could have been such supernatural judgments, then you are actually the one arguing from silence, saying that no record must prove it did not occur.

I raise this point to show we should not be writing scripts. And are there not enough supernatural judgments in this account to allow for this possibility?

Leviticus 10:2 So fire came out from the presence of the Lord and consumed them, and they died before the Lord.

Could they have thought to bring them there as well?

As in the one who pushes the button on the electric chair. If such a judgment is just, and the courts have the prerogative to make that sentence, then it is morally justifiable to carry out a just sentence.

He saw miracles, he saw Jesus' response to sin, we can indeed get to know God, though this is another topic, I only meant here that I am not just accepting that God is good by definition, I have evidence.

That's kind of what I'm doing here in other threads. But that would be fine, glad to discuss this more, as much I have time to respond more.

Whatever they may have thought then, they might think better of this now…

1 Peter 3:19-20 Through whom also he went and preached to the spirits in prison who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah…

1 Peter 4:6 For this is the reason the gospel was preached even to those who are dead, so that they might be judged according to men in regard to the body, but live according to God in regard to the spirit.

He may have had their best interest in mind, too…

Psalm 136:15 but swept Pharaoh and his army into the Red Sea; His love endures forever.

Not just his love for Israel (re verse 25 of this psalm).

Not if God did not command it…

Regards,
Lee

Charles Bailey

If servants were what the Israelites were after, then why not keep the young boys alive as well as the young girls? Wouldn't they be better suited for manual labor? Also, why not keep alive those women who had "known a man?" Weren't they capable of being maidservants too? And why make virginity a criterion for female survival at all? Of what relevance would this be to servanthood? Also, would it be reasonable to suppose that a young girl who had just watched the slaughter of her entire tribe (including her mother and father) would be interested in marrying her murderous captors? If yes, then why?

How, exactly, does the fact that everyone dies provide an objective foundation for justifying moral atrocities? Did you leave out your explanation on purpose or was it by accident? Also, I cannot accept your premise that a God exists who has knowledge we don't have. Please stop begging questions Lee. Please demonstrate one verifiable fact that has ever been established as coming from "knowledge human beings do not have" or admit you can't.

Not necessarily. Postulating any number of "how-it-could-have-happened" scenarios in an effort to avoid making a firm conclusion may reasonably be considered an argument from silence, especially in cases where a particular conclusion seems obvious and it is known that the proponent of endless "possible scenarios" has a special interest in avoiding the obvious conslusion.

Bottom line is that if you in any way interpret silence as consent, you are committing a logical fallacy.


Nice try Lee. First of all, what you describe above would not be an argument from silence, rather it would be an argument from ignorance. Second, the text we've been disussing is explicit in detail:

NUMBERS 31:7-11
7 So they made war against Midian, just as the LORD had commanded Moses, and they killed every male.

8 They killed the kings of Midian along with the rest of their slain: Evi and Rekem and Zur and Hur and Reba, the five kings of Midian; they also killed Balaam the son of Beor with the sword.

9 The sons of Israel captured the women of Midian and their little ones; and all their cattle and all their flocks and all their goods they plundered.

10 Then they burned all their cities where they lived and all their camps with fire.

11They took all the spoil and all the prey, both of man and of beast.

In other words, there is no reason to speculate as to how the Midianites died. It's all right there in the text! There's really no room here for "possible scenarios" of supernatural judgments and such.

The really sad part of the story is that the Israelite warriors actually tried to spare the lives of all the women and children but the godly man Moses angrily chastised them for disobeying a direct order from God and subsequently ordered all the non-virgin women and male children to be put to death immediately! The Israelites, according to the story, unfortunately complied. Fortunately for the Israelites, they got to keep all the young virgin girls alive for themselves! (Which of course was unfortunate for the Midianite virgins.)

Lee, why would you try to avoid the obvious implications of the text? Is personal difficulty with the text really a valid justification in your estimation?

No. The text is explicit. Read:

NUMBERS 31:17,18
17 "Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man intimately.

18 "But all the girls who have not known man intimately, spare for yourselves." [Moses]


The text has Moses ordeing the Israelite warriors to kill them, Lee. Had Moses wished, he could have ordered the Midianite survivors be taken before the presence of the Lord where they would be consumed by fire. Then perhaps the text of Numbers 31:17 would read much like Leviticus 10:2.

The other problem for your postulation is that it makes an appeal to the supernatural (or unknown), whereas a plain reading of the text requires no such mystical assumptions about the manner of deaths the Midianites suffered. Occam's Razor tells me that your explanation is not the most parsimonious one available, and therefore, it is more likely to be inaccurate or just plain false.

What reason do I have to prefer your possible scenario over a plain reading of the text?

You're trying your level best to evade the relevant issues, aren't you?
Lee, there were no electric chairs, courts, or judges present for the Midianite massacre. No perogatives and no argument or evidence that the ordered killings were morally just. Just a command from Moses who claimed to be speaking for God. That's it. No court on planet earth today would be able to justify such atrocities on a moral basis, nor does any court in the world have a perogative to command or approve of genocide, and you know it as well as anyone else!

Well, in order to defend the doctrine of Bible-inerrancy, you would be required to take definite positions on things, you would be required to make certain committments, which is something I don't see you doing much of the time. Anyway, if you're serious, the person I was referring to is one Farrell Till. Perhaps you've heard of him? Just say the word and I'll be sure to let Farrell know that I've found someone who is willing to put their belief in Bible-inerrancy to the test.

What do you say Lee?

Aside from the fact that the verses you just cited are unverifiable and nonfalsifiable, should I just interpret this response as an affirmation of "ends justify the means?"

As I see it, this most recent "culture of life" business that fundies have been bandying about since the Terry Schiavo debacle is nothing but lip service. Corner a fundie on the moral atrocities of the Bible and you'll see just how cheap your average bibliolater considers human life to be.

No. I don't think so.

EXODUS 12:29,30
29 Now it came about at midnight that the LORD struck all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh who sat on his throne to the firstborn of the captive who was in the dungeon, and all the firstborn of cattle.

30 Pharaoh arose in the night, he and all his servants and all the Egyptians, and there was a great cry in Egypt, for there was no home where there was not someone dead.

The point of the atrocity was for God to specifically act out against the best interests of the Egyptians (presumably even those in the dungeons), in order to force Pharaoh (whose heart God himself had hardened) to let the Israelites free from captivity.

You've got to be kidding me! Lee, are you merely trolling this forum?

Psalm 136 is nothing more than a sychophantic mantra which basically praises the heinous acts of Bible-God repetitiously. Read:

10 To Him who smote the Egyptians in their firstborn,
For His lovingkindness is everlasting,

17 To Him who smote great kings,
For His lovingkindness is everlasting,

18 And slew mighty kings,
For His lovingkindness is everlasting:

21 And gave their land as a heritage,
For His lovingkindness is everlasting,

It astounds me that you would cite Psalm 136:25 in defense of your assertion that God may have had the best interests of the Egyptians in mind when he bombarded them with plagues including the smiting of their first-born given what that passage says:

25 Who [the Lord] gives food to all flesh,
For His lovingkindness is everlasting.

I simply can't take you seriously.

But presumably God did command the atrocities if in fact they held that he did. So does this make their acts of genocide morally permissible or not? If not, why not?

Also, we all sometimes pick and choose what we will and won't respond to in forums like this; sometimes due to time constraints or perhaps irrelevant responses among other things. However, I was hoping to see a response to the question below:

Well Lee? Do you have an answer?

Biff the unclean

Are you completely heartless or has your religion warped your perspective on humanity? I can understand how this might be important in a movie or a book for entertainments sake but we are talking about real life here…at least we Atheists are


Then let me help you

10:28 And that day Joshua took Makkedah, and smote it with the edge of the sword, and the king thereof he utterly destroyed, them, and all the souls that were therein; he let none remain : and he did to the king of Makkedah as he did unto the king of Jericho.
10:32 And the LORD delivered Lachish into the hand of Israel, which took it on the second day, and smote it with the edge of the sword, and all the souls that were therein , according to all that he had done to Libnah.
10:33 Then Horam king of Gezer came up to help Lachish; and Joshua smote him and his people, until he had left him none remaining.
10:35 And they took it on that day, and smote it with the edge of the sword, and all the souls that were therein he utterly destroyed that day , according to all that he had done to Lachish.
0:37 And they took it, and smote it with the edge of the sword, and the king thereof, and all the cities thereof, and all the souls that were therein; he left none remaining , according to all that he had done to Eglon; but destroyed it utterly, and all the souls that were therein.
10:39 And he took it, and the king thereof, and all the cities thereof; and they smote them with the edge of the sword, and utterly destroyed all the souls that were therein; he left none remaining : as he had done to Hebron, so he did to Debir, and to the king thereof; as he had done also to Libnah, and to her king.
10:40 So Joshua smote all the country of the hills, and of the south, and of the vale, and of the springs, and all their kings: he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the LORD God of Israel commanded.
10:41 And Joshua smote them from Kadeshbarnea even unto Gaza, and all the country of Goshen, even unto Gibeon.
10:42 And all these kings and their land did Joshua take at one time, because the LORD God of Israel fought for Israel.

Odd that something repeated so many times should skip your notice. Right there in Josh 10:40, right where you say it isn’t, it states he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the LORD God of Israel commanded
Then in 42 in case you want to squirm out of it it clearly states the LORD God of Israel fought for Israel. So God’s involvement in the brutality is declared and then it’s even reaffirmed

So are you saying that genocide is okay with you if God orders it? Had you been in Rwanda and God had told your leader the same thing He told Joshua would you obey the Lord your God and leave none remaining? You can’t claim that God wouldn’t do such a thing because the word of God says He already has and you say it is His prerogative to do so. Would you obey God?

But to sin is to go against the will of God. The genocide in Joshua is God’s will he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the LORD God of Israel commanded

And if you got such things, would you then hack women and children to pieces?

Ahh, slaves. Yes, that’s much better.
So newborn babies deserve to be damned to Hell in your eyes?

Charles asked you what moral foundation you had. You reply was an immoral one.
Try again.

Try slaves and whores.

Ananias and Sapphira both slain “supernaturally� for their sins only a couple of years after Jesus died for their sins? Both for withholding their own money from a guy that Jesus had already chastised for being too handy with a sword.

So if you heard God’s voice telling you to kill a baby because it would grow to be the anti-Christ, would you follow God’s will or would you seek out a mental health professional?

You have the evidence of Joshua. Are you going to withhold this evidence, because you seem to have forgotten it already?