No More Tears

Okay, since OWB appears to have deserted us, it's left to me to answer our question about the Midianites. In checking out Christian apologetics think tank websites, I've come up with a version that seems to me still unjustifiable, but puts a marginally better face on the incident than the wanton massacre/sex slave scenario we had envisioned. It seems that the Midianites, or at least the aggressive segment of them Moses eventually subdued,were taking advice from a kind of sorceror hit man, Balaam, who understood Israelite customs, practiced a kind of sexual warfare against Israel, by sending the Midianite females to the Israelite encampment, tempting them to have sex, and then getting them involved in pagan fertility rites to the god Baal/Peor, for the purpose of breaking the covenant with Yaweh and robbing Israel of His protection. The Israelites fought the Midianites because of their unprovoked attack on them. Large numbers of pubescent females were involved in the sexual warfare part of this effort. That's why Moses thought it was wrong to spare all of them.

There's no indication that the femaless who were spared were used as sex slaves, which would violate Israelite traditions. These would have been very young, under 12 years of age. They probably served as weavers/spinners, in return for their support. The others were killed because of their probable culpability and the fact that the Israelite nomads would have had no practical way of supporting them during their journey. Same goes for the male kids, who could eventually have posed a threat and would certainly have been a burden. I drawing the line on who to take, preference was given to those who were least likely to have culpable involvement or present a threat. In other words, these kids were regarded as collateral damage, as so many kids become in warfare today. Not a pretty picture at all. Was it justified? Some of the Christian sites think so, and think it was charitable for the Israelites to take any Middianite kids with them. Not in my book. But God didn't really order the killing of the kids, Moses did. Although the Bible doesn't disapprove of the outcome, it doesn't exactly praise it either. Hey, I tried. Anybody else have anything to add?

 

Specifically to this sentiment, the authors of historical narrative are often motivated and sanctified in their activities by god, and their enemies are usually less than holy.

 

I wouldn't necessarily say "sanctified in their activities", but I do understand where I think you are going here. Isn't this a debate that has (literally) gone on for centuries...in that history is presented by the "winners"...
Although if you were to read the Old Testament, you will certainly find numerous (imo) stories where God's people are not necessarily presented in the best of lights, so to say. Hey, Moses didn't even go up on the mountain any time at all before they began melting their jewelry, etc to make a graven image (golden calf). However, I digress.

Inasfar as the OP, I feel that when we reach eternity, our perceptions as well as our ability to do will be so altered, in that form...as far as loved ones we have known "being in hell", I think we will know whatever happens is just. I certainly do NOT agree with the viewpoint that there is no hell. There are those people that consciously make such heinous wrong choices that I do believe there will be justice for them, too - and oft not on this earth.
That being said, what do we know of those last moments, when someone is judged before the almighty. I feel our God Jehovah is merciful, especially since the entry of Jesus.

 

I appreciate your point. The authors "feel sanctified". Every human character is present in the bible and it is subject in turn to every human characterization. The bible is not only a historical narrative.

 

Way too personal...

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0LEn4S4kUE"]YouTube- Andrew Jackson Jihad - No More Tears

 

Huh?

 

This is the exact line of thinking the Taliban uses. Just sayin.

 

It is the idea of cultural superiority and is endemic to all cultural identities. These identities are cultivated through taboo and hero worship. Us must be better than them in order to justify aggression, or, we must condemn in order to justify our unwillingness to forgive.

 

And how do we tell? Is it all relative? Even today, as recently as the past few days, with Israel's latest attack on the vessel, most nations condemn the attack, the United States' response is muted, and to its defenders Israel can do no wrong. And the latter is the viewpoint fundamentalists necessarily take of such events in the Old Testament.

 

I'm not sure I understand the questions, how do we tell or is it all relative.
The phenomena we are talking about is a cultural phenomena not a religious one, even though we may have religious devotion to cultural practice.

 

Shrug. You were the one claiming that those in the bible who committed atrocities were more holy then their enemies, and sanctioned by God. I'm just saying that this is an excuse used by many, and I do not think it is a viable excuse for atrocity. A loving God would not sanction such activities.

The God of the bible is a -War- god. Very clearly. He's more like Thor or Ares then he is like Baldir or Pan.

Edit: Or Jesus. God of war becomes God of peace, overnight. An interesting rewrite. Too bad it didn't actually work too well. Ah well, the Christ cult, though it committed many an atrocity, has seemed to have managed to slowly, ever so slowly, spread an idea of a different way to be. Despite vast issues built into the cult at it's root, it's also offered the idea of love, even of your enemy, as an ideal, something most other societies of it's day did not hold as of great value. And I think thanks to that it has in the end done more good than harm.

 

Actually I was saying that the authors of historical narrative , tend to claim that god is on their side and against the side of the enemy, or that their system promotes a greater good than some other system. The other side is always considered the violator. Beyond all of this is the fact that history is always told in the present and as such is always at the mercy of the author.
There are no viable excuses for atrocity, that is why we develop cultural imperatives to make these things seem viable. You need to manufacture popular support because no individual would would consider atrocity anything but atrocious.

 

The harm is what comes from traditional treatment of new ideas. Jesus made a point that you don't put new wine in old wine skins or the skin will break and both the wine and the skin will be ruined.

The Christ cult, that is the cult of human sacrifice rose from an existing cult of animal sacrifice. The Christ teaching was a collection of metaphysical theorems and observations of the human energy system, focusing on perception and identifying the source of power, i.e. the power to forgive sins.
Jesus teaching that the restoration of a condemned world is through mercy, not sacrifice.

As far as in the end doing more harm, what end?

 

How do you quantify harm?

 

If you look closer there are many gods in the bible and their many faces reflect the many faces of men.

 

Ah, gotcha. Sorry, misinterpretation.