? and Moses go plundering!
The GMW
Members Posts: 259
Numbers 31 describes an adventure involving ? , Moses, and Moses' men. The outcome is sad for the little boys and girls involved, but it works out great for Moses' soldiers and "chosen people". (This is from the KJV)
"And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Avenge the children of Israel of the Midianites: afterward shalt thou be gathered unto thy people. And Moses spake unto the people, saying, Arm some of yourselves unto the war, and let them go against the Midianites, and avenge the LORD of Midian."
...
"And they warred against the Midianites, as the LORD commanded Moses; and they slew all the males. And they slew the kings of Midian, beside the rest of them that were slain; namely, Evi, and Rekem, and Zur, and Hur, and Reba, five kings of Midian: Balaam also the son of Beor they slew with the sword. And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones, and took the spoil of all their cattle, and all their flocks, and all their goods."
...
"And Moses was wroth with the officers of the host, with the captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, which came from the battle. And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD. Now therefore ? every male among the little ones, and ? 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."
This is Moses, the biblical hero, commanding his men to execute women and children who have been captured in war. The young female virgins, however, are to be "kept".
? goes on to command that the spoils (including cattle, donkeys, sheep, and girls) are to be divided up between the soldiers, the Israelite community, and ? himself. ? 's share of the virgins -- 32 total -- are accepted on his behalf by a priest.
Can someone, anyone please explain the morality behind these men executing "little ones" and keeping the ? daughters of their slaughtered enemies as rewards?
"And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Avenge the children of Israel of the Midianites: afterward shalt thou be gathered unto thy people. And Moses spake unto the people, saying, Arm some of yourselves unto the war, and let them go against the Midianites, and avenge the LORD of Midian."
...
"And they warred against the Midianites, as the LORD commanded Moses; and they slew all the males. And they slew the kings of Midian, beside the rest of them that were slain; namely, Evi, and Rekem, and Zur, and Hur, and Reba, five kings of Midian: Balaam also the son of Beor they slew with the sword. And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones, and took the spoil of all their cattle, and all their flocks, and all their goods."
...
"And Moses was wroth with the officers of the host, with the captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, which came from the battle. And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD. Now therefore ? every male among the little ones, and ? 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."
This is Moses, the biblical hero, commanding his men to execute women and children who have been captured in war. The young female virgins, however, are to be "kept".
? goes on to command that the spoils (including cattle, donkeys, sheep, and girls) are to be divided up between the soldiers, the Israelite community, and ? himself. ? 's share of the virgins -- 32 total -- are accepted on his behalf by a priest.
Can someone, anyone please explain the morality behind these men executing "little ones" and keeping the ? daughters of their slaughtered enemies as rewards?
Comments
-
just storeis told around campfires at the time...has nothing to do with the Moses and the Israelites (if there ever was a moses) nor of ? , the infinite Creator. The Bible is like a good Sidney Sheldon novel, read and enjoy
-
And I'm sure that when ? gave this command, Moses was excited to do so; that Moses was like..."Father, I hate these people. I want them dead. Can I have your blessing to ? them?"...no one knows what was his stand on it.
Moses is not the hero (neither is David, Abraham, Noah and others). We are looking at the wrong person and I'm not saying this to deny his contributions. It is missing the point to think that the Bible is a book morality and moral examples. -
alissowack wrote: »And I'm sure that when ? gave this command, Moses was excited to do so; that Moses was like..."Father, I hate these people. I want them dead. Can I have your blessing to ? them?"...no one knows what was his stand on it.
Moses is not the hero (neither is David, Abraham, Noah and others). We are looking at the wrong person and I'm not saying this to deny his contributions. It is missing the point to think that the Bible is a book morality and moral examples.
you are absolutely(100%) correct... -
alissowack wrote: »And I'm sure that when ? gave this command, Moses was excited to do so; that Moses was like..."Father, I hate these people. I want them dead. Can I have your blessing to ? them?"...no one knows what was his stand on it.
Moses is not the hero (neither is David, Abraham, Noah and others). We are looking at the wrong person and I'm not saying this to deny his contributions. It is missing the point to think that the Bible is a book morality and moral examples.
Tell that to ALL your average Christians in your local churches and they'll laugh in your face. I've brought up verses like this w people I had gone to church with and they find some stupid way to explain it.
This isn't about Moses just deciding one day he's gonna go on a murderous rampage and take a bunch of virgins, it's actually "? " stating these things to this delusional man. How does a "? " who's hard strung on 'morality' (the one who without we would supposedly all have NO morality) give such orders? Any man today, anywhere, giving these orders would be considered bad/evil/the devil etc. Yet ? always receives a free pass w every such order.Can someone, anyone please explain the morality behind these men executing "little ones" and keeping the ? daughters of their slaughtered enemies as rewards?
WHAT is the POINT in murdering the little ones? Children have no idea, they only KNOW through their surroundings. They absorb everything as they grow, how is anything their fault? '? ' created them that way, so he should know better, no?
What are the virgins kept for though? Basically any woman who has had a child is disgusting and any who haven't, "oooh la la"? This verse indirectly implies sex before marriage as well, because ANY reader would think that. -
Tell that to ALL your average Christians in your local churches and they'll laugh in your face. I've brought up verses like this w people I had gone to church with and they find some stupid way to explain it.
This isn't about Moses just deciding one day he's gonna go on a murderous rampage and take a bunch of virgins, it's actually "? " stating these things to this delusional man. How does a "? " who's hard strung on 'morality' (the one who without we would supposedly all have NO morality) give such orders? Any man today, anywhere, giving these orders would be considered bad/evil/the devil etc. Yet ? always receives a free pass w every such order.
If it's about politics, sure the "Christians" will laugh. Morality is made out to be something more than just something that encourages good behavior...it is made out to be the difference between going to Heaven or going to Hell; that our actions determine where we end up. Morality can't save us from ? 's Wrath. Morality can't save us from sin. -
The people that the Israelites conquered ran afoul of ? . More than likely they committed 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Commandment violations. This is purely conjecture on my part.
-
ether-i-am wrote: »I can assure you that The Bible ? had no parts of this. The Bible ? is Good.
And thats a wrap people! -
alissowack wrote: »If it's about politics, sure the "Christians" will laugh. Morality is made out to be something more than just something that encourages good behavior...it is made out to be the difference between going to Heaven or going to Hell; that our actions determine where we end up. Morality can't save us from ? 's Wrath. Morality can't save us from sin.
So as long as people believe in Jesus, killing kids and ? teenage virgins is ok? -
Maximus Rex wrote: »The people that the Israelites conquered ran afoul of ? . More than likely they committed 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Commandment violations. This is purely conjecture on my part.
Even if they did, does it make sense to you that ? would command these men to ? the children that they captured? And even if you think that slaughtering them all, regardless of age is fine, what's the justification for keeping only the young female virgins alive? -
So as long as people believe in Jesus, killing kids and ? teenage virgins is ok?
What does believing in Jesus has to do with ? and killing? People can do that apart from believing in Jesus. Besides...that is what you...as well as others want it to say; that somehow because the "buzz words" are in the Bible, that we should do the same. -
Today we have more people than they did back then running in sin and ignoring ? , so where are our murders? Whose doing Gods bidding right now?
I find it interesting that back then they had all sorts of encounters w ? and these missions but today there isn't ? ... -
alissowack wrote: »What does believing in Jesus has to do with ? and killing? People can do that apart from believing in Jesus. Besides...that is what you...as well as others want it to say; that somehow because the "buzz words" are in the Bible, that we should do the same.
Yes people can do that without believing in Jesus, but according to your belief, the difference is that if they do believe in Jesus, they can ? and murder to their heart's content and still be in ? 's favor. -
Yes people can do that without believing in Jesus, but according to your belief, the difference is that if they do believe in Jesus, they can ? and murder to their heart's content and still be in ? 's favor.
No, they didn't. In the Old Testament, they didn't know who Jesus was. They knew who ? was and even then...you have this notion that when people say "? " or "Jesus", that they are on the best behavior or they are doing something to honor ? . Someone can say they believe in the Devil and not be looking for trouble.
Those who think that the Bible is about morality is missing the point. They treat it as such so you have those who think that ? is giving them the "green light" when He's not. -
Even if they did, does it make sense to you that ? would command these men to ? the children that they captured? And even if you think that slaughtering them all, regardless of age is fine, what's the justification for keeping only the young female virgins alive?
Because they haven't had sex yet, I guess. I'm currently in the process of reading the Bible, I'm up to Joshua. I've notice that ? is on some "impatient-? -it-I'm-just-? -all-you-muthafuckas." ? . I'm not a bibcal sholar, so everything I say is purely conjecture. My rationale is that ? provided the early prophets with guidelines on how He wanted muthafuckas to live. When He (? ) saw they man was doing his own thing, he said "? it. I'm going to start over. You have to remember their was several times in Leviticus when ? was going to decimate the Israelites who being hard headed and lacking faith, but Moses interceded on their their behalf. As far as killing the kids, your putting a 21st Century rationale and moral codes on anicent peoples. ? probably figured the children were tainted and beyond hope. -
alissowack wrote: »No, they didn't. In the Old Testament, they didn't know who Jesus was. They knew who ? was and even then...you have this notion that when people say "? " or "Jesus", that they are on the best behavior or they are doing something to honor ? . Someone can say they believe in the Devil and not be looking for trouble.
Those who think that the Bible is about morality is missing the point. They treat it as such so you have those who think that ? is giving them the "green light" when He's not.
The thing is, according to this story, they were doing something to honor ? . ? was commanding them to do these things.
When you say that the bible is not about morality, are you saying that ? doesn't care how we act or what we do, as long as we believe in him/Jesus? -
Maximus Rex wrote: »Because they haven't had sex yet, I guess. I'm currently in the process of reading the Bible, I'm up to Joshua. I've notice that ? is on some "impatient-? -it-I'm-just-? -all-you-muthafuckas." ? . I'm not a bibcal sholar, so everything I say is purely conjecture. My rationale is that ? provided the early prophets with guidelines on how He wanted muthafuckas to live. When He (? ) saw they man was doing his own thing, he said "? it. I'm going to start over. You have to remember their was several times in Leviticus when ? was going to decimate the Israelites who being hard headed and lacking faith, but Moses interceded on their their behalf. As far as killing the kids, your putting a 21st Century rationale and moral codes on anicent peoples. ? probably figured the children were tainted and beyond hope.
The little boys hadn't had sex yet either, so why ? them and not the girls? If it was because the children were tainted, isn't it odd that the male children were tainted and the female children were not? Considering that the soldiers were instructed to "keep" the virgins for themselves, don't you think it may have been because the female virgins served a purpose (to put it delicately)?
Assuming ? is omniscient, he doesn't have to "figure" anything; he would know for a fact what the children would turn out to be. So if he was willing to ? those children, why not exterminate every child who will grow up to be evil? Further if ? is the source of moral guidelines, how could his moral codes have changed between then and now? Isn't he unchanging? -
The thing is, according to this story, they were doing something to honor ? . ? was commanding them to do these things.
When you say that the bible is not about morality, are you saying that ? doesn't care how we act or what we do, as long as we believe in him/Jesus?
It's one thing to be commanded to do something by ? and another for someone wanting to do something for ? (however there is a verse that says that no one seeks ? ...but that's another story). Like you said...? commanded them...which means it's not influenced by "His Chosen". ? wasn't like..."Hey, if you are in favor of killing and ? , then raise your hand", and all their hands go up. Either they was going to do what ? said to do or suffer the consequences.
Again, it's not about morals. It's whether ? 's people believe that when ? says something...He means it; that it's not treated like..."Oh, that's just ? talking...don't pay Him any mind". Not only that, when ? says something, it is not made out to be more or less than what it is that is being said. -
this story has been happening from time immemorial, look at the genocides in some african countries. once a set of people beleive that their cause is just, then they will slaughter anyone and everone that has a difference insight, even the dog under the cellar.
-
alissowack wrote: »And I'm sure that when ? gave this command, Moses was excited to do so; that Moses was like..."Father, I hate these people. I want them dead. Can I have your blessing to ? them?"...no one knows what was his stand on it.
Moses is not the hero (neither is David, Abraham, Noah and others). We are looking at the wrong person and I'm not saying this to deny his contributions. It is missing the point to think that the Bible is a book morality and moral examples.
I agree brotha!!!!!!!! The slavery and genocide supporting book known as the Bible is NOT a book to learn more about morality!!! Good post! -
Maximus Rex wrote: »Because they haven't had sex yet, I guess. I'm currently in the process of reading the Bible, I'm up to Joshua. I've notice that ? is on some "impatient-? -it-I'm-just-? -all-you-muthafuckas." ? . I'm not a bibcal sholar, so everything I say is purely conjecture. My rationale is that ? provided the early prophets with guidelines on how He wanted muthafuckas to live. When He (? ) saw they man was doing his own thing, he said "? it. I'm going to start over. You have to remember their was several times in Leviticus when ? was going to decimate the Israelites who being hard headed and lacking faith, but Moses interceded on their their behalf. As far as killing the kids, your putting a 21st Century rationale and moral codes on anicent peoples. ? probably figured the children were tainted and beyond hope.
Sooooooo the Biblical ? is all KNOWING and all LOVING and still murders tons of male children? And supports genocide? And lets the female kids be captives to male soldiers among others?
LMAO......you just made the Biblical ? look even more stupid and fake. Actually I take that back. He didn't need your help at all. -
kingblaze84 wrote: »I agree brotha!!!!!!!! The slavery and genocide supporting book known as the Bible is NOT a book to learn more about morality!!! Good post!
You can read about morals in the Bible...but it is not about how "good" someone can be in the eyes of ? . Morality doesn't "save" people. -
alissowack wrote: »You can read about morals in the Bible...but it is not about how "good" someone can be in the eyes of ? . Morality doesn't "save" people.
So Jesus was just talking out his ass when he said treat others the way you want to be treated. After he drowned the whole world, killing tons of innocent children.
Got ya. -
kingblaze84 wrote: »So Jesus was just talking out his ass when he said treat others the way you want to be treated. After he drowned the whole world, killing tons of innocent children.
Got ya.
It's one thing to know the rules, and another to be saved by them. People can "fake" being good...or be good because they want something in return. Besides, there is the impression that you know what "innocent" means in respect to ? . -
alissowack wrote: »It's one thing to know the rules, and another to be saved by them. People can "fake" being good...or be good because they want something in return. Besides, there is the impression that you know what "innocent" means in respect to ? .
The Biblical ? doesn't believe anyone is innocent. Just like Ted Bundy and John Wayne Gacy didn't. Am I far off? -
kingblaze84 wrote: »The Biblical ? doesn't believe anyone is innocent. Just like Ted Bundy and John Wayne Gacy didn't. Am I far off?
No...you are way off, sir. You are saying that man's understanding of innocence is exactly like ? 's understanding. If that is the case, then it doesn't matter if you reject ? or you reject me. You end up rejecting yourself.
