GPLindsey

I've had enough of Christians asserting their moral superiority with the attack that atheists believe in "situational ethics", whereas they live by unchanging moral truths. The fact is, when they interpret the Bible, they routinely cry that the reader must remember the "context" in which this or that passage was written. This is how they get around passages that make God to be cruel or mad or both. They practice situational ethics, only they call it contextual morality.

Now let's compare the two. In Numbers, Chapter 31, Moses and the tribes defeat the Medianites, wiping out the men. They take the women and children captives. Moses tells his people, in God's name, to kill the women and young boys, and distribute the girl prisoners amongst themselves (i.e., slave girls). The "context" under which this is morally justified? Why, the Medianites were wicked and had tempted the Israelites to false Gods, and might do so again in the future. So wipe them out. By this logic, Moses should have ordered the Israelites to march on to central Europe, to wipe out the Germans before they had a chance to enter the world stage!

No attempt was made to convert the prisoners to worship the true God. No recognition that the Medianites, like all people, had "free will" and might turn from the path of wickedness with the right incentives, such as being shown compassion by their conquerors.

Now, under situational ethics, most atheists would overwhelmingly conclude that a battle took place, the enemy has been vanquished, and the threat has been removed. It would be useless to predict whether 50 or 100 or 500 years later the Medianites would cause us problems, so the proper course for treating the prisoners of war would be to treat them with mercy and rebuild what has been destroyed.

I cannot think of any "situation" where murdering women and children prisoners of war after victory has been won would be ethically justified. But when one considers the contextual morality of the event, I guess the Bible says different.