What Was God's Rationale In This Instance?

[Not David]

They didn't win.

Yeah, so the History was written by those who beat them. Is the History fake then?

 

[Not David]

This does not answer the question. Please provide the verse(s) which demonstrate your assertion.

Why? I don't believe in Sola Scriptura.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Yeah, so the History was written by those who beat them. Is the History fake then?

Is the history true simply because victors made claims or is it true because those claims can be substantiated?

It's rather hard for victims of genocide to rebut assertions about their character.

 

[Not David]

I'm aware 'last names' weren't around back then That's quite evident from history. I think you missed my slight sarcasm. The simple fix can apply to re-assigning a 'first name', 'last name', or teaching a new culture to surviving youth, or other... My point is that it's a simple fix, which does not require death.

I'm asking you again... Can you please provide verse(s) which supports your assertion, in post #2?

Not, it does not. The Israelites had problems following God while having foreign wives, even more with male children who grow up.

 

[Not David]

Is the history true simply because victors made claims or is it true because those claims can be substantiated?

It's rather hard for victims of genocide to rebut assertions about their character.

Is there anything to justify a possible "they were good boys" theory besides your anti-Christianism?

 

[Tinker Grey]

Is there anything to justify a possible "they were good boys" theory besides your anti-Christianism?

You claimed they were bad boys. You justify your claim. Go back and reread. I made no claims about this situation.

 

[cvanwey]

Why? I don't believe in Sola Scriptura.

You don't really have to... However, if there exists no 'reasons' for such very specific commands, in (this) particular event, then all you are presenting is pure opinion, wishful thinking, 'rationalization'/cognitive dissonance, other....

Thus, until you furnish evidence to support your assertion, in post #2, then I can confidently conclude pure opinion, wishful thinking, 'rationalization'/cognitive dissonance, other....

 

[cvanwey]

Not, it does not. The Israelites had problems following God while having foreign wives, even more with male children who grow up.

But a taken virgin would still be a 'foreign wife', if marrying into a differing race/culture/other. Please explain?

Infants/toddlers, whom are/were taught nothing but the preferred culture, would be no different than children from their own loins really. Again, culture is taught. Please explain?

And on a side note... What if all the surviving virgins from this war wanted no part of the winning Israelites? Where they allowed to leave?

 

[eleos1954]

First and foremost, where is this justification specified in the Bible, for this event?

Furthermore, why not spare the male infants, male toddlers, elderly women, and all soon-to-be widows as well? Tribe culture is likely taught/learned, not innate...

If the goal was to eliminate the entire blood line, then they would all need to be wiped out; all males and females completely. Otherwise, inherited and unwanted tendencies could likely be passed on from the surviving female's side to their offspring.

The rest, (i.e) culture, is a simple fix... Re-assign a new last name to the surviving young males, which would not know of their prior families, as they would not remember.

On a side note, how would the soldiers know which women were even fertile?

And even further, what if these surviving virgins wanted nothing to do with any of their captors? Where they free to leave?

Furthermore, why not spare the male infants, male toddlers, elderly women, and all soon-to-be widows as well? Tribe culture is likely taught/learned, not innate..

Perhaps a few reasons.

Males carry the seed.

Tribe culture is likely taught/learned, not innate...

Good point.

Elderly and young women would have the teaching of the culture deeply engrained in them

On a side note, how would the soldiers know which women were even fertile?

Doesn't talk about fertility ... fertility does not determine whether one is a virgin or not ... never has.

The actual age of the "virgins" is not given ... but likely would have been of an very young age that (looked) was obvious to them. Looked/obvious to be less than 12 years of age which was the age when a young female was eligible for marriage in those days.

The bloodline within their culture was destroyed (experienced destruction) not totally eliminated/
annihilated ... in the book of Judges it states the Midianites never again became a threat

A lot of the specific questions you have are not addressed in the account.

Here's a link that gives a brief summary of the
Midianites
and also in there are links to related biblical references

Midianite | Definition & Facts

You can do your own research on the matter and settle your own argument ... or not ...

The Lords ways are not our ways and I accept that.

Isaiah 55

8 "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways," declares the LORD.

I'm done with this particular subject.

 

[cvanwey]

Thank you for your participation thus far. If you are done, I understand. However, my response is for others to also participate.

Perhaps a few reasons.

Males carry the seed.

This does not really address much of anything asked above....

Good point.

Great, if we agree, then why were the infant males slaughtered?

Elderly and young women would have the teaching of the culture deeply engrained in them

Sure, but my point is that they can no longer reproduce, and can provide little to no influence to future unwanted culture. Women were essentially 'second class' citizens, which harbor little to no authority anyways. Especially under this new rule. So why kill them? Just let them live and die a natural death; unguided in God's commanded wrath?

Doesn't talk about fertility ... fertility does not determine whether one is a virgin or not ... never has.

My point in asking is... (why spare the virgins alone)? Seems as though such culture only wanted 'pure' women to spread their seed.

A lot of the specific questions you have are not addressed in the account.

Here's the crux of this post then....

Isn't it plausible to make a case that the ones whom wrote of such assertions, in this case, did so under their own wishes and accord, and that such verses were not God commanded? If not, please explain why?

The Lords ways are not our ways and I accept that.

I find this as a common response, when claims from their God do not appear to align with their own internal 'moral values'.

I'm done with this particular subject.

May I ask why?

 

[Not David]

You claimed they were bad boys. You justify your claim. Go back and reread. I made no claims about this situation.

Yeah because I believe in the source.

 

[Not David]

You don't really have to... However, if there exists no 'reasons' for such very specific commands, in (this) particular event, then all you are presenting is pure opinion, wishful thinking, 'rationalization'/cognitive dissonance, other....

Thus, until you furnish evidence to support your assertion, in post #2, then I can confidently conclude pure opinion, wishful thinking, 'rationalization'/cognitive dissonance, other....

The Church is the one who wrote Scriptures, so it is up to her to decide the meaning.

 

[Not David]

But a taken virgin would still be a 'foreign wife', if marrying into a differing race/culture/other. Please explain?

Infants/toddlers, whom are/were taught nothing but the preferred culture, would be no different than children from their own loins really. Again, culture is taught. Please explain?

And on a side note... What if all the surviving virgins from this war wanted no part of the winning Israelites? Where they allowed to leave?

The closest thing to keeping infants alive would be the Ottoman Empire taking Greek children to raise them as Muslim soldiers but that happened when the Empire was already solidified. I don't see another example in History where kids were preserved.
Why wouldn't they have any part on it? What would be her choice?

 

[Tinker Grey]

Yeah because I believe in the source.

The Bible is a claim.

 

[Tinker Grey]

The closest thing to keeping infants alive would be the Ottoman Empire taking Greek children to raise them as Muslim soldiers but that happened when the Empire was already solidified. I don't see another example in History where kids were preserved.
Why wouldn't they have any part on it? What would be her choice?

Whataboutism.

 

[Not David]

The Bible is a claim.

Sure, go with that.

 

[Not David]

Whataboutism.

That's a weird way of calling "comparing cases"

 

[Tinker Grey]

That's a weird way of calling "comparing cases"

Nah. Your post reads as if what your god commanded isn't bad because other tyrants did the same thing. Weak sauce.

 

[Not David]

Nah. Your post reads as if what your god commanded isn't bad because other tyrants did the same thing. Weak sauce.

It seems like you don't understand how tribes and nations think yet you are infallible in deciding morality

 

[Tinker Grey]

It seems like you don't understand how tribes and nations think yet you are infallible in deciding morality

Oh, I understand how tribes and nations think. And no, I don't think I'm infallible. (And, I'll thank you to take your mind-reading act elsewhere.)

What I don't understand is how anyone can defend genocide. ETA: