Numbers (31:17-18)

"Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves."

Discuss.

 

It's not rape if God tells you to do it.

 

What's so very special about virgins? Gotta teach them every damn thing! Ain't nobody got time for that!

 

Put it into context first

 

Do you really believe there could exist a context that would make this ok?

 

Is any act of war ok?

 

We'd expect better behavior than this from our current - highly flawed - government officials... Certainly the "word of God" should be moral...?

 

In other words you got nothing

 

"You got nothing"...?
Actually, I've just pointed out that the "word of God" shows less morality than our current politicians... That is not "nothing".

 

Unless you're Mormon it's Rapy McChrist.

 

Thats about as relevant as claiming the rulers of ancient Egypt was worse than modern US politicians because they did not hold elections. The story you are comparing modern times to is close to 3000 years old. Things change

 

If God is infinite and omniscient, time and culture should be irrelevant to him...
Are you saying morality is not absolute?

 

It isn't to him, but it definitely is to us

s to us

 

Agreed. Odd that time and culture were definitely factors for the writers of the Bible.
It's almost as if the Bible isn't the "word of God", but the flawed understanding of a superstitious peasant in the stone age...

 

Exactly. I'm so sick of hearing the "you're taking it out of context" line that's regurgitated for everything. How in the world could there be a situation where enslaving/raping women would be ok?

Says the guy with no justification of such disgusting commands.

So, rape was good at some point? The idea that morality changes is contrary to what every single Christian I've ever talked to has said. Apparently, if god decided that raping babies after pealing all of their skin off was good, you'd go along with it? Scary.

 

Which is a major stumbling block for those who subscribe to Biblical literacy

 

Sure, thats a nice easy cop out. The particular passage is about the reaction to a culture trying to destroy a culture

 

And for those who don't... Who gets to decide how to interpret, and which parts are worth interpreting?
Given that this book is the sole basis for belief in the christian god, this seems fairly important.

 

Not heard of the New Testament?

 

You mean the part where a guy is born and claims that all people are the sons and daughters of God, then proceeds to contradict everything God has said to that point?
As I understand it, the guy gets the death penalty and is then worshiped for the next few thousand years by people who wear representations of the torture device he was killed on...

Given that he didn't seem to agree with God on ANYTHING, it's almost like he was NOT God.... In fact, as I recall, his divinity wasn't really determined until several centuries later at the council of Nicea...
Of course, if this vote by a bunch of (totally unbiased ) old men was incorrect, there would be serious implications regarding the First Commandment.

 

Pulling one line out of the book is taking it out of context and being "okay" is not the final conclusion one must reach. The Bible is a collection of stories that very few see as written directly by God so trying to beat modern religious people over the head with it is silly. While ancient commentators through the middle ages tried to be apologetic about this passage calling it God's revenge on Midian creating an image of the Midianites as so fully depraved that any punishment is worthy of them. Not unlike the way we justify war today on people, from Dresden to Agent Orange to drones.

However, more contemporary eyes see this particular section of Torah to be disturbing. So brutal is the account of this fighting that even Dr. J. H. Hertz, the preeminent apologist for the traditional rendering of the text, states in his well-known commentary that "The war against the Midianites presents peculiar difficulties...we cannot satisfactorily meet the various objections that have been raised...". Hertz was a standard for understanding the meaning of the text in the 20th century and he struggles with the brutality. Commentators later on find this to be a symbol of brutality that teaches us that perhaps we must look to the single incidents in the Torah for guidance. Later in the Torah there are rules that Moses and the Israelites would violate here. Rules about war, captives, women. This is just one incident that must be seen for what it is, an angry delivery of hate on a people for revenge. But we can't just let that lie. If we hope to use the Torah today as a way to understand a way of creating a just society we must talk about it in terms of Moses being wrong and in fact God being wrong.

Rabbi Richard Hirsch, a leader in the Reconstructionist Jewish movement writes:

I read Torah every day. I argue with the text, I struggle with what the words say. More people should do that. Non-believers who are troubled by religion and its way of spreading violence should ally with people like me to show a new way to embrace faith without being a slave to it. It is lines like this in the texts of ours and other faith traditions that lead to murdering of abortion doctors, flying planes into buildings, and shooting up the Tomb of the patriarchs. We must, not let those win and they do when anyone paints all those who follow a faith with one big brush.

 

That's all thrilling, really.
Bottom line, if I understand correctly, is that most people believe this stuff isn't to be taken literally as "God's word". Correct?

 

correct the Torah is poetry not prose. It is neither and history or science book and while in its entirety it can be read as a book of justice there are harsh things in there that can never fit into our modern sensibilities. But there is still value in learning what the ancients thought.

 

Wouldn't it then be fair to say that it is not suited for use as a literal guide to morality?

 

Not a literal guide no, that is why from the beginning there was commentary on how to read it and use it in your time. Some miss that point. (See many in the fundamentalist community of both Judaism and Christianity).