Belief versus Piety

[At Peace]

I think we’re talking past each other a bit through neither of our own faults. I think, instead, it has something to do with the top-down, bird’s eye view our conversation has had so far on this bit of biblical doctrine. With your indulgence, I’ll try to trim back some of the giant squid’s arms and lay out a specific case study that might get us on more tractable footing.
First, I’ll stay away from any mention of slaves/servants. And I won’t set it in any specific historical era.
Imagine you are a nine-year-old girl in a Jewish family. Your father comes to you and tells you he has sold you to a millionaire, and that your new owner has come to collect you. Naturally, you are horrified and traumatized by the event, but eventually you get over all that. The millionaire provides you with comfortable lodging and furnishes all your basic needs: food, water, clothing, medical attention, etc., etc. The only work that is required of you is to do the laundry of the household and fetch the groceries at market. You are never abused nor even treated unpleasantly by your master and his family.
One day, a few years later, you meet a very nice young man at market and the two of you strike up a friendship. Your market schedules allow you to see each other on a regular basis and your friendship eventually blossoms into romantic love.
He himself is poor, but he has a steady job and earns enough to provide for a family. He asks you to marry him. You go back to the millionaire’s household and you explain to your master you would like to leave and go marry the young man. As nicely as he can, the millionaire simply forbids it. Maybe he lays out his reasons why or maybe he says you asking his reasons why is obstreperous and he is not obliged to tell you. Either way, he forbids you to leave.
In your opinion, does or does not the millionaire have clear authority for his actions based in scripture?

Your hypothetical scenario allows the sale of nine year old girls, while the bible doesn't condone it.
However, if you were a nine year old girl and had nothing to eat for a week, would you fret over going somewhere that had plenty to eat?
Would you do the laundry to continue to get fed on a steady basis?
As for the "boyfriend", he needs to supply a dowry to, again, gain ownership of the girl.

You should examine the cases that ARE in the bible that concern "servitude".
Like king Ahasuerus, to Mordeci and Esther.
Like Laban, to Jacob and Rachel.
Like Nebuchadnezzar to Daniel - (Belteshazzar), Hananiah,- (Shadrach), Mishael - (Meshach), and Azariah, - (Abednego).
Your view of servitude is jaded by the unGodly slavery of early America.
God would never advocate such slavery.

 

[Kirby D. P.]

OT slavery was more employment contracts. You cannot compare it to slavery of Africans to Africans, Europe and North America...

Hi KingJ! Always nice to see you.

I’ve been trying to reply to you since this morning, but this week my Wifi is totally fritzing.

I don’t pretend to know God or any god definitely does not exist. I also know that, where I see a material world completely devoid of convincing evidence for the existence of God, faithful Christians see a luxuriant, even profligate, trove of proof trumpeting that he unquestionably DOES exist.

I don’t think it’s intellectually sound to use scripture to argue that God does not exist, and when I hear atheists and other critics engage in that line of reasoning I cringe. As an example (which is only analogous because it doesn’t actually involve scripture, per se), when critics try to disprove Intelligent Design, they often cite examples in nature of apparently bad, “Unintentional” design. (The combined air/food tube in the human neck, the proximity of human excretory and reproductive systems, the “backward facing” photo receptors in the human eye, etc.)

These are all bad examples of design by human standards. My dad was an MIT engineer. He designed and ran nuclear reactors for the US Navy. By his own expert designing standards, the human body seemed a rather botched job. But he didn’t fault that design because, he always acknowledged, he wasn’t the guy who designed it. And there may very well be TONS of reasons why the human body is an example of positively brilliant, even divine, design which seems Unintelligent to 21st Century human engineers.

So, I am very careful to avoid any claim that I find biblical verse X or Y morally flawed, therefore, no God.

Yet I do see lots of ethical problems throughout scripture. I take it you understand Deut 23:15 to mean that slaves/servants are at their liberty to leave their masters any time they please. I honestly don’t agree. And I am sure we would arrive at similar disagreements regarding just about every biblical passage I find morally deficient.

But this comes right back to the germ of my original question. So far, I am unconvinced the Bible is moral. Let us allow for the moment that you are able, given enough time (and patience) to convince me otherwise.

To rephrase my first query a bit: I don’t believe in God and SEPARATELY I find scripture morally flawed. Do you think it would be at all possible for me to BELIEVE in God, but still find scripture morally wanting?

Thanks!

 

[Curtis]

I think we’re talking past each other a bit through neither of our own faults. I think, instead, it has something to do with the top-down, bird’s eye view our conversation has had so far on this bit of biblical doctrine. With your indulgence, I’ll try to trim back some of the giant squid’s arms and lay out a specific case study that might get us on more tractable footing.

First, I’ll stay away from any mention of slaves/servants. And I won’t set it in any specific historical era.

Imagine you are a nine-year-old girl in a Jewish family. Your father comes to you and tells you he has sold you to a millionaire, and that your new owner has come to collect you. Naturally, you are horrified and traumatized by the event, but eventually you get over all that. The millionaire provides you with comfortable lodging and furnishes all your basic needs: food, water, clothing, medical attention, etc., etc. The only work that is required of you is to do the laundry of the household and fetch the groceries at market. You are never abused nor even treated unpleasantly by your master and his family.

One day, a few years later, you meet a very nice young man at market and the two of you strike up a friendship. Your market schedules allow you to see each other on a regular basis and your friendship eventually blossoms into romantic love.

He himself is poor, but he has a steady job and earns enough to provide for a family. He asks you to marry him. You go back to the millionaire’s household and you explain to your master you would like to leave and go marry the young man. As nicely as he can, the millionaire simply forbids it. Maybe he lays out his reasons why or maybe he says you asking his reasons why is obstreperous and he is not obliged to tell you. Either way, he forbids you to leave.

In your opinion, does or does not the millionaire have clear authority for his actions based in scripture?

Every one is under some form of master. You are either being influenced by light, or darkness. There is no such a thing as being interdependent in this life. But we are given the choice to whom we will serve. As the Apostle Paul once said...

Rom 6:16 Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness?

Rom 6:18 and, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness.

Jesus took upon himself the form of a "servant" (a slave)

Php 2:5 Let this same attitude and purpose and [humble] mind be in you which was in Christ Jesus: [Let Him be your example in humility:]
Php 2:6 Who, although being essentially one with God and in the form of God [possessing the fullness of the attributes which make God God], did not think this equality with God was a thing to be eagerly grasped or retained,
Php 2:7 But stripped Himself [of all privileges and rightful dignity], so as to assume the guise of a servant (slave), in that He became like men and was born a human being.

We are all slaves, to either light or darkness. Who would you prefer to be your master? He who alone holds the riches of life, joy unspeakable, peace other that God himself, or the devil, who holds darkness, tribulation, anguish of heart, the fear of death, and every evil way?

 

[Curtis]

true freedom, and liberty only comes when you under the protection, and Wisdom of a being much stronger, and wiser than yourself, or any body else! Jesus is Lord.

 

[Kirby D. P.]

Your hypothetical scenario allows the sale of nine year old girls, while the bible doesn't condone it...

Hello, At Peace. I can’t call to mind any passage in the Bible when God pronounces appropriate age limits for taking on slaves/servants. If you can, could you please cite it?

On the other hand, I can’t overlook Moses’s instructions to the Hebrews regarding the slaughter of the Midianites in Numbers––

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. (Num 31:17-18, KJV)

I don’t think it’s reasonable to ask me to seek interpretation from some other authority if this is the true and accurate Word as inspired by God. To me it simply says: kill the boys and the women [the men had already been massacred in battle], but keep any female virgin as war booty. No qualification as to age and a very clear specification of “women CHILDREN.”

I know this can’t possibly be your understanding of these verses, because just from our brief interaction here I can tell you are filled with far more human compassion than to find this book acceptable if you shared my take on the passage.

I will not say this excerpt trumps all or any of your claims for wisdom in scripture. I only point it out to help illustrate why I, myself, have such trouble seeing the text in a positive light.

Now, I’ll say again, my belief in the existence or nonexistence of God in no way hinges on what I think of this or any verse in the Bible. I THINK (and I freely admit I might be completely wrong) that if I were to come to believe in the existence of God, I would still not find the Bible, on balance, to be a good model for moral behavior.

In your opinion, is this impossible in practical terms or at all incoherent in logical terms? Or do you think it is at least POSSIBLE for a person to hold these two, admittedly conflicted, precepts?

 

[Curtis]

Kirby D.P. The problem with reading the scriptures and using a logical analytical mind to interpret them, is you will not see the purpose behind why God tells his people to do certain things. For example: If you knew in advance that your son was going to be harmed by a certain group of people, would you not tell your son to do something that would prevent that harm from coming to him? The logical analytical mind can not understand the Wisdom, and foreknowledge of God, because the Lord God knows all things that are going to happen before they happen. If we do not listen to him, then great harm will come our way.

 

[Kirby D. P.]

Kirby D.P. The problem with reading the scriptures and using a logical analytical mind to interpret them, is you will not see the purpose behind why God tells his people to do certain things...

Hi, Curtis.

Yeah. I know. For some reason I’ve never been able to read scripture through the lens of faith. I try not to hold it against anyone who does, but neither do I beat myself up over it. I try to think of it like this: You and I are on a hill overlooking some body of water. We take turns walking down to the water’s edge and measure its most important quality. When we compare notes, it turns out you checked its temperature and I checked its salinity.

In light of that, this may not be an avenue of conversation you’d like to foray down very far, but I will say that, when the welfare and safety of my children are concerned, I take great pains to instruct them with as nearly flawless, crystal clear information as humanly possible. And I directly check and recheck, actively and obviously, their understanding of that instruction.

I assume you will disagree, but I do not find the same level of universally understood clarity in the Bible. Rather than nit pick out examples of verses I find ambiguous or opaque, I’ll simply observe there is a great diversity of opinions among the faithful as to the “true and correct” interpretation of any of the holy texts.

If I am being charitable, I could suggest that scripture serves some same purpose for believers in different eras and different cultures, resulting in divergent riffs on the same liturgical theme (as when both colonial pro-slavery advocates and abolitionists argued their cases from the same Bible), like different jazz artists bringing their own artistic flavor to the same melody.

But, if I am writing instructions for my children to read many many years after I am gone, and their ability to comprehend what I am writing determines their eternal fate, I am going to be almost preposterously pedantic in its composition. I’d wind up writing something that made IKEA directions look like The Brothers Karamazov. And try though I might with my analytical mind (and, for a heathen, I DO read the Bible rather a lot), I just never come away with anything approaching that level of clear understanding.

 

[Curtis]

Hi, Curtis.

Yeah. I know. For some reason I’ve never been able to read scripture through the lens of faith. I try not to hold it against anyone who does, but neither do I beat myself up over it. I try to think of it like this: You and I are on a hill overlooking some body of water. We take turns walking down to the water’s edge and measure its most important quality. When we compare notes, it turns out you checked its temperature and I checked its salinity.

In light of that, this may not be an avenue of conversation you’d like to foray down very far, but I will say that, when the welfare and safety of my children are concerned, I take great pains to instruct them with as nearly flawless, crystal clear information as humanly possible. And I directly check and recheck, actively and obviously, their understanding of that instruction.

I assume you will disagree, but I do not find the same level of universally understood clarity in the Bible. Rather than nit pick out examples of verses I find ambiguous or opaque, I’ll simply observe there is a great diversity of opinions among the faithful as to the “true and correct” interpretation of any of the holy texts.

If I am being charitable, I could suggest that scripture serves some same purpose for believers in different eras and different cultures, resulting in divergent riffs on the same liturgical theme (as when both colonial pro-slavery advocates and abolitionists argued their cases from the same Bible), like different jazz artists bringing their own artistic flavor to the same melody.

But, if I am writing instructions for my children to read many many years after I am gone, and their ability to comprehend what I am writing determines their eternal fate, I am going to be almost preposterously pedantic in its composition. I’d wind up writing something that made IKEA directions look like The Brothers Karamazov. And try though I might with my analytical mind (and, for a heathen, I DO read the Bible rather a lot), I just never come away with anything approaching that level of clear understanding.

Before I believed the Word of God, and became a Christian 40+years ago, a friend of mine, and I use to smoke pot, and read the Bible to each other. It scared the Hell out of us. We did not have any clue as to what it was revealing, in fact it made us think that God was some wacko weirdo who just wanted the killing of innocent people. Some one who reads the Bible with a open heart and willing to learn to what is being said, God see's. I am sure you being here on this forum is not just a accident that happened by chance. If you seek, you will find what you are looking for.

 

[Kirby D. P.]

... If you seek, you will find what you are looking for.

Thank you for the kind thoughts and encouragement, Curtis.

 

[At Peace]

Hello, At Peace. I can’t call to mind any passage in the Bible when God pronounces appropriate age limits for taking on slaves/servants. If you can, could you please cite it?

Nope, not a one.

On the other hand, I can’t overlook Moses’s instructions to the Hebrews regarding the slaughter of the Midianites in Numbers––
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. (Num 31:17-18, KJV)

Verse 16 was the reason for the slaughter.
The alternative to keeping the virgin women-girls alive was death.
Would you find that more to your liking?

I don’t think it’s reasonable to ask me to seek interpretation from some other authority if this is the true and accurate Word as inspired by God. To me it simply says: kill the boys and the women [the men had already been massacred in battle], but keep any female virgin as war booty. No qualification as to age and a very clear specification of “women CHILDREN.”
I know this can’t possibly be your understanding of these verses, because just from our brief interaction here I can tell you are filled with far more human compassion than to find this book acceptable if you shared my take on the passage.
I will not say this excerpt trumps all or any of your claims for wisdom in scripture. I only point it out to help illustrate why I, myself, have such trouble seeing the text in a positive light.
Now, I’ll say again, my belief in the existence or nonexistence of God in no way hinges on what I think of this or any verse in the Bible. I THINK (and I freely admit I might be completely wrong) that if I were to come to believe in the existence of God, I would still not find the Bible, on balance, to be a good model for moral behavior.
In your opinion, is this impossible in practical terms or at all incoherent in logical terms? Or do you think it is at least POSSIBLE for a person to hold these two, admittedly conflicted, precepts?

No, I don't think it possible.
You read of the just judgement of God for wickedness and grow wary.
That judgement will be much worse on the final generation, especially since we have seen and been warned by past events, like Sodom and Gomorrah.
Believe, or perish..

 

[KingJ]

Yet I do see lots of ethical problems throughout scripture. I take it you understand Deut 23:15 to mean that slaves/servants are at their liberty to leave their masters any time they please. I honestly don’t agree. And I am sure we would arrive at similar disagreements regarding just about every biblical passage I find morally deficient.

Just think about being stoned to death. It was a pill that was difficult for me to swallow. Graphic, violent and gruesome act. A gathering of people taking part in it. Why not just a decapitation or hanging? Why specifically stoning? After much thought, perhaps little for others, I concluded it was clearly because God wanted to send a crystal clear message to those in grievous sins.

So, how would this apply to a slaver. Well, If your best friend committed adultery and you witnessed him being stoned to death. You then discovered one of those stoning him was himself a cruel person. Who would completely mistreat his female slaves. Rob them of their humanity. Would you keep quiet or voice your concern to the priests and elders?

We need to grasp that back in that day, every single Jew that witnessed a stoning, became TERRIFIED of being guilty of any grievous sin. Not afraid. Not concerned. Terrified!

I would be more accommodating to your argument raised from those verses you have selected if it was of another society. But to suggest that with the Jews, is truly illogical. They are one society that literally stood out like a sore thumb among all their neighbors.

Of course bad things still happened, but the law in place was as harsh as it could be to curb all forms of wickedness. You will lose that debate.

We shouldn't need to dig for Deut 23:15, we should grasp stoning and the judgement of a panel of elders / priests enforcing a verse like Lev 19:34 The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the Lord your God.

To rephrase my first query a bit: I don’t believe in God and SEPARATELY I find scripture morally flawed. Do you think it would be at all possible for me to BELIEVE in God, but still find scripture morally wanting?

It doesn't help you believe in God and find scripture morally wanting. Our brains and emotions are designed to respond favorably to goodness and avoid wickedness, whether we be good or evil. If you cannot be convinced that God is good, you would not want to serve Him. Well, willingly at least.

But this is the foundation of Christianity. Our faith is in God being good. We give thanks because God is good Psalm 136:1.

I don't see how we can not give God the benefit of the doubt on contentious scripture when we read a verse like John 3:16. It is like me taking a bullet for you, you then telling others that because this one time I did not share my ham sandwich with you, I am actually a bad person. Any person should say, uhm....this guy that just took a bullet for you must have had a very good reason for not sharing his ham sandwich.

God ''has'' sunk to a depth of intent of love and commitment to mankind. This fact cannot be denied. Christianity exists because of what Jesus did on the cross. It is founded on absolute trust and gratefulness in God's love for mankind. In God's goodness.

We grow in faith in God's goodness. I can honestly say that a lot of scripture I found contentious when I was younger, I no longer do. I do believe I can make a strong defense for God's actions throughout scripture. To give an example. Consider Abraham reasoning God's destruction of Sodom Gen 18:16-33. What we see is a human reasoning with God. God considering and listening to the human. The human being convinced that what God is doing is correct. Same with Moses and the golden calf Exo 32. Moses told God to not destroy them. God listened and did not. It is all evidence of God being an open book. Of us having the ability to grasp what is good and evil to such a degree that we 'judge' God's actions. God has given this to us because He has nothing to hide. He wants us to judge Him. So let's do that, but properly.

 

[KingJ]

On the other hand, I can’t overlook Moses’s instructions to the Hebrews regarding the slaughter of the Midianites in Numbers––

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. (Num 31:17-18, KJV)

I don’t think it’s reasonable to ask me to seek interpretation from some other authority if this is the true and accurate Word as inspired by God. To me it simply says: kill the boys and the women [the men had already been massacred in battle], but keep any female virgin as war booty. No qualification as to age and a very clear specification of “women CHILDREN.”

No, not war booty.

These woman were to be grafted into their society. Any Jew raping a woman would get stoned to death.

Young boys were not spared because they would avenge their family's death.

I do believe that all children under 20 go straight to heaven Num 14:29. To be tested another day Rev 20:7.

 

[Kirby D. P.]

Verse 16 was the reason for the slaughter.
The alternative to keeping the virgin women-girls alive was death.
Would you find that more to your liking?... ...Believe, or perish..

Hi, At Peace. Sorry for the radio silence yesterday. Personal obligations made it unavoidable to neglect my life’s one true passion: goldbricking.



Anyway, I think we’ve sufficiently circumscribed where your understanding of scripture just will not jibe with my own.

You say the only alternative to abducting Midianite virgins after slaughtering their fathers, mothers and brothers would have been to kill them. Naturally, you’ll expect me to disagree and I do. To me, it seems like what you are arguing is that God had no alternative here for some reason, hence limiting his omnipotence.

Moreover, I’m not sure, were I one of those virgins, I might not have preferred death to sexual slavery. I know you see no evidence to think their survival would have meant a lifetime suffering sexual violence and little else. But I don’t think it’s plausible that the Hebrews would subject the Midianites to absolute ethnic cleansing only to take on the Midian girls as vulnerable wards deserving nurturing foster families, especially absent positive instructions to do so from the deity who elsewhere regularly commands complete extermination. By way of comparison in another, comparable Iron Age Mediterranean community with a comparably violent reputation, recall the Romans’ unapologetic “Rape of the Sabines.”

As I say, I think I understand your view on this 100% and I support and applaud it. The ability to read such passages and believe they describe events where at least SOME human rights are respected does, honestly, give me some hope.

But touching on these human rights in light of your sincere injunction to “Believe or perish,” all I can say is:

Read and reread these stories as much as I can, to my eyes, again and again, God commands, requires and rewards the Hebrews in the commission of genocide. I can’t ever say for sure how I WOULD feel about this if I DID believe. But today, right now, if any power of any sort demanded that either I commit genocide or eternally perish, I would freely choose to perish. And I don’t know how to convince you that’s not a bluff, other than to ask you to accept my ‘Yes’ is ‘Yes’ and my ‘No’ is ‘No,’ so to speak.

 

[Kirby D. P.]

...We need to grasp that back in that day, every single Jew that witnessed a stoning, became TERRIFIED of being guilty of any grievous sin. Not afraid. Not concerned. Terrified!...

Hey, KingJ. Considering your (honestly) thought provoking points, I can’t take on board a positive view of a great deal of scripture without running afoul of two incongruous types of assumption. I’ll contrast two examples to explain what I mean.


1. Scripture is the manifest account of God’s immutable will and design and it is not for us to draw from its principles and concoct ad hoc lessons suited to our particular era. It is clear, explicit, and inaccessible to “interpretation” except through willful dishonesty.


2. Scripture is exquisitely composed by God to be immediately comprehensible to the Iron Age Mediterranean culture, in their specific time and place, who set it down as holy text.


Now, first I will agree that the Bible CAN be clearly explicit and, in certain places, is precisely that. I have never heard a credible “re-interpretation” of “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” ( Ex 20:3, KJV )


Then how so is it, as you yourself say, “After much thought… …I concluded it was … …because God wanted…” I have heard and read many Christians insist this need to grapple with understanding betrays imperfection on their part, that Christians suffer this plight because it takes deliberate effort to comprehend God’s flawless message.


For instance, as you raise the subject of public execution by the whole organized community, “If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife…” ( Deut 22:23-24 KJV )


Forgetting for the moment I’ll never agree that simple adultery is a capitol offense, this statute is not NEARLY as unambiguous as Ex 20:3. Is the whole business about “in town” and “cried out” meant to exempt rape victims from this punishment? Maybe. But not absolutely necessarily. To grasp it, and more especially, to base legal principle upon it which can be applied to our own contemporary situations, requires interpretation and reference to other such scriptural material, even though there is no grant of permission to make such interpretations nor clear, specific instructions to guide the student to the appropriate cross reference.


But then, as you so correctly point out, “…ack in that day, every single Jew that witnessed a stoning, became TERRIFIED of being guilty of any grievous sin. Not afraid. Not concerned. Terrified!” Amen! I think it would have been hilariously funny if the punishment for one or two of these transgressions was “the electric chair.” An omnipotent God would absolutely have known about electric chairs. As well, he knew that it would have made little or no impression on his Iron Age readership. Their closest understanding might well have been, “Miracle Chair.” Maybe “Lightning Chair.” But nothing as visceral to the antique Levantine mind as stoning.


But, if this is so, I can’t think (or feel) my way around the fatal flaw it poses for the Bible’s eternal, inerrant utility as a moral guide. Its presentation was customized to the moral and judicial needs of its Iron Age adherents.


In my opinion, ethics and jurisprudence have evolved over the past 2-4 millennia since. To me, by 21st Century standards, stoning, public execution, summary capitol punishment (well, to be perfectly honest, ANY capitol punishment), disadvantaged discrimination against women, are all serious violations of human rights and constitute punishable crimes, whereas adultery by itself does not. As positive evidence of this I’ll simply point out this much more closely describes modern day society than that of biblical times.


How does all this affect my opinion of whether God exists? Not. At. All.


The only association I make between supposed Biblical inerrancy and God’s existence is: If God exists and the Bible is explicitly perfect, then we are doing something very, very wrong and we need to make some radical changes to how we live. For instance, it will necessarily entail dragging Donald Trump and his 2nd and 3rd wives into the public square where a body of stalwart, pious men shall stone them with stones that they die. That’s not a joke and it is in no way an exaggeration.


If God exists but the Bible is subject to interpretation (and, assuming there is one CORRECT interpretation) then humanity is obliged to do a much better job of sussing that correct interpretation out and extinguishing the promulgation of false interpretations.


Finally, if God does not exist, it seems to me we have a moral duty to supersede biblical doctrine with newer, more just ethical codes on a constant and evolving basis.

 

[At Peace]

Anyway, I think we’ve sufficiently circumscribed where your understanding of scripture just will not jibe with my own.

Perhaps not, but it was the only way for me to live so as not to hurt myself or others ever again.

You say the only alternative to abducting Midianite virgins after slaughtering their fathers, mothers and brothers would have been to kill them. Naturally, you’ll expect me to disagree and I do. To me, it seems like what you are arguing is that God had no alternative here for some reason, hence limiting his omnipotence.

God's avenue of action, having mercy on the girls that had yet to "lie with men", seems better than the results for sin suffered by their families.

Moreover, I’m not sure, were I one of those virgins, I might not have preferred death to sexual slavery. I know you see no evidence to think their survival would have meant a lifetime suffering sexual violence and little else. But I don’t think it’s plausible that the Hebrews would subject the Midianites to absolute ethnic cleansing only to take on the Midian girls as vulnerable wards deserving nurturing foster families, especially absent positive instructions to do so from the deity who elsewhere regularly commands complete extermination. By way of comparison in another, comparable Iron Age Mediterranean community with a comparably violent reputation, recall the Romans’ unapologetic “Rape of the Sabines.”

The violence you imagine is quite a distance from the actual results written of in the bible...ie, "keep them alive for yourselves".(Num 31:18)
Why do you imagine that God's people would act in such an unGodly manner?
Could it be a mindset that refuses to yield to God no matter how much evidence is shown?

As I say, I think I understand your view on this 100% and I support and applaud it. The ability to read such passages and believe they describe events where at least SOME human rights are respected does, honestly, give me some hope.
But touching on these human rights in light of your sincere injunction to “Believe or perish,” all I can say is:

Read and reread these stories as much as I can, to my eyes, again and again, God commands, requires and rewards the Hebrews in the commission of genocide. I can’t ever say for sure how I WOULD feel about this if I DID believe. But today, right now, if any power of any sort demanded that either I commit genocide or eternally perish, I would freely choose to perish. And I don’t know how to convince you that’s not a bluff, other than to ask you to accept my ‘Yes’ is ‘Yes’ and my ‘No’ is ‘No,’ so to speak.

Like all those I meet who don't want to be "governed", I see you as a man who just doesn't want to be told what to do; even if you would gain eternal life. (2 Peter 2:10)

 

[Kirby D. P.]

...Like all those I meet who don't want to be "governed", I see you as a man who just doesn't want to be told what to do... (2 Peter 2:10)

At Peace,

I’ve been sitting here awhile pondering if there’s any point of disagreement between us worth going back and raking over any more hot coals when something really cool occurred to me.

But first, a bit of housekeeping:

I do stubbornly reject authoritarian rule (think Josef Stalin), but I readily accept, and even cherish, authoritative “rule” (think Abraham Lincoln). Some of my most valued relationships have been subordinate to worthy leaders: teachers, counselors, mentors, captains in some organized effort. It’s not a distinction I think is worth much parsing, but I did want to let you know my reaction to the charge of “ungovernable.”

Anyway, I was admittedly a little flummoxed for a bit, thinking, “No matter how I frame it, At Pease just WILL NOT ADMIT the biblical issues I keep pointing out as problematic. Its as if At Peace refuses to take for granted that the biblical Hebrews behaved in monstrous, yea, ungodly ways. That, if humans are acting as humans SHOULD act, they would not and could not do the things I keep impugning to biblical characters. And, as I thought about it, that is… totally… kind of cool. And honestly, quite affirming. Because that’s how I think humans ought to act as well.

I hope you won’t detest me for my lack of faith and what must surely seem a wrong-headed view of scripture. But you have absolutely convinced me you are a person who would never knowingly behave immorally or in any way calculated to harm someone else.

And I think that’s pretty cool. Thank you.

 

[B-A-C]

Anyway, I was admittedly a little flummoxed for a bit, thinking, “No matter how I frame it, At Pease just WILL NOT ADMIT the biblical issues I keep pointing out as problematic. Its as if At Peace refuses to take for granted that the biblical Hebrews behaved in monstrous, yea, ungodly ways. That, if humans are acting as humans SHOULD act, they would not and could not do the things I keep impugning to biblical characters.

At Peace has a slightly different perspective than most of us. He believes we have to be "perfect" once we become Christians.
(meaning we never sin). However it seems most Christians on here still sin sometimes after they become a Christian.

The jews weren't perfect. They went after other Gods, disobeyed God and di many things He told them not to do.
And yet... they were His children. There were times He punished them to be sure. Still through all of that, He loved them.
David wasn't perfect, neither was Samson, Elisha, Barak, Moses, take your pick...

It's the same with Christians today... we aren't perfect. Peter wasn't, Paul wasn't, Thomas wasn't....
We aren't saved "because" we sin. We are saved "in spite of" the fact we sometimes sin.
We shouldn't sin. (we all agree on that, it seems even you agree on that point)... and yet... we do.
There have been numerous debates here as of late about "how perfect do I have to be, to be saved".
I'm not sure we are any closer to a consensus, than we it all started.

But if we can't be 100% perfect... then God made a way for us with grace.
If we can eventually be perfect, then God made a way for us through the power of His Spirit.
(I personally believe it's both, I don't believe we never sin after we are saved... but I believe we can eventually get there.

In the mean time... one of the things you have to love about the Bible... it pulls no punches.
When they committed adultery... it says so. When they went after other gods... it says so. When they disobeyed God... it says so.
The Bible makes no bones about these things. People are human.

Some of the things God told them to do... may not make sense to us. (kill all the women and children)
and yet there were other stories were they didn't do this and it came back to haunt them. (the foreigners wanted to go
back to their old gods, and they swayed the Jews to join them). Other times these people weren't even humans...
the Nephilim were giants. God wanted them destroyed. (they were formed by rebellious angels) They were inhabiting a land
that God has promised to the Jews. Many scholars beieve that Satan put them there as a stronghold to make sure the
Jews never got this land.

Keep in mind the Bible history covers over 4000 years. It wasn't just a generations or two... it was generation after generation
for hundreds and hundreds of years... they obeyed God... they forsook God... {rinse repeat} dozens of times through dozens
of generations. Just because one group of Jews were obedient to God doesn't mean the next generation was.
In fact... to me... the Bible shows Gods persistence and grace... in going after those He loves... to turn them away from those
"monstrous, ungodly ways" as you put it.

Taking blankets statements is difficult. I wonder if you can give a specific passage about
some of these monstrous ways.

 

[At Peace]

Of the two above posts, the second one is the most pernicious.

Calling your self "Born-Again-Christian", but denying the results thereof, is not a service to God.
It authorizes continued service to sin.

I thank God for the results of my death, burial, and resurrection with Christ; at my baptism into Christ; that I may "walk in newness of life". (Rom 6:3-6)
The result of that resurrection is spelled out in the next verse..."For he that is dead is freed from sin."

If you are not yet perfect, it means you have yet to "turn from" sin. Your old man of sin is still alive.

 

[B-A-C]

Your old man of sin is still alive

Yes he is... everyday.

Luke 9:23; And He was saying to them all, "If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross daily and follow Me.

1 Cor 15:31; I affirm, brethren, by the boasting in you which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die daily.

Rom 8:13; for if you are living according to the flesh, you must die; but if by the Spirit you are putting to death the deeds of the body, you will live.

 

[At Peace]

At Peace,
I’ve been sitting here awhile pondering if there’s any point of disagreement between us worth going back and raking over any more hot coals when something really cool occurred to me.
But first, a bit of housekeeping:

I do stubbornly reject authoritarian rule (think Josef Stalin), but I readily accept, and even cherish, authoritative “rule” (think Abraham Lincoln). Some of my most valued relationships have been subordinate to worthy leaders: teachers, counselors, mentors, captains in some organized effort. It’s not a distinction I think is worth much parsing, but I did want to let you know my reaction to the charge of “ungovernable.”

That wasn't a charge I made.
I said you don't want to be governed...except it now turns out, by teachers, counselors and captains etc. .
Do you have some personal connection to the Midianites who were killed in Num 31?
Perhaps you are the fruit of the union of Midianite girl and Jewish husband?
If God had not saved her, you wouldn't be here!
LOL

Anyway, I was admittedly a little flummoxed for a bit, thinking, “No matter how I frame it, At Pease just WILL NOT ADMIT the biblical issues I keep pointing out as problematic. Its as if At Peace refuses to take for granted that the biblical Hebrews behaved in monstrous, yea, ungodly ways. That, if humans are acting as humans SHOULD act, they would not and could not do the things I keep impugning to biblical characters. And, as I thought about it, that is… totally… kind of cool. And honestly, quite affirming. Because that’s how I think humans ought to act as well.
I hope you won’t detest me for my lack of faith and what must surely seem a wrong-headed view of scripture. But you have absolutely convinced me you are a person who would never knowingly behave immorally or in any way calculated to harm someone else.
And I think that’s pretty cool. Thank you.

How SHOULD humans act?
Like there is a loving, forgiving, redeeming, sanctifying, God, or, like there is no God-government-law-wage to be paid for sin?
You seem to prefer the second choice....chaos.

I prefer the choice wherein God's Son came and conquered sin while in the flesh. Shed the blood that cleansed me from my past iniquity. Promises me eternal life just for loving Him back...as well as my neighbors as myself.
For that mission He has given me His Spirit to guide and teach me.
Scripture to see the truth of the prophesies of old being fulfilled and some that have yet to be.
And this promise..."There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it." (1 Cor 10:13)
The "escapes" are there for you too.