Many different issues are involved here, but maybe the biggest one is that it seems many associate love with pacifism. What, then, does that mean with respect to justice?

What do you do when two people are in a brutal, violent fight? Is it "love" to do nothing or is it "love" to intervene (i.e., apply force)?

Next, many think scriptures such as what you quoted suggest an arbitrary judgement. If one believes God is who the Bible says He is, then why would his decisions be arbitrary? Understanding the history of each situation often reveals the command is not arbitrary at all.

If you don't believe in the God proclaimed by the Bible, it's not really worth quibbling over these things. They will always seem unjustifed.

Resha,

So you are saying that G-D being sovereign will do just what he wants to do without asking our permission or understanding, why he commands us to do that which he wants us to do.

Dont you think Moses might have got a little headstrong in this chapter and did his own thing ?

I think what needs to be remembered here is that Moses served the Law of God, but not the Grace of God. The Law doesn't quibble about who is worthy of death; everyone is, young or old doesn't matter. So the story of the slaughter of the Midianites reinforces the overall theme of the Bible; that serving the Law leads to death and destruction. Did Moses do a good thing by killing them? Perhaps not, but he did the right thing according to the Law and to God. Yes, the Law says, "Thou shalt not kill", but the Law also says that all are condemned to death anyway. (Of couse the apparent hypocrisy here reinforces that the Law is not, in and of itself, the way we should live.) So as far as God and the Law was concerned the Midianites deserved death, every last one of them.

Now, of course, this may all just be someone clever trying to cover up a terrible crime. As far as I'm concerned it was a crime, but a crime to Grace, not the Law. Which is why I serve Grace and not the Law.

Can someone serve the Law and still do good? Of course, Christ did. But only if one can do as Christ did, keep the whole Law. I know I am not capable of doing such a thing, so I forsake the Law just as the Law forsook me. This is no shame on my part; the Law decided I was fit only for death even before I was born. What, then, do I owe to the Law? I can only die once. So I accept Grace to the exclusion of all else, even the Law.

Solace, I could quibble with you over a few minor details, but all in all that was an excellent reply, better than I could have done in many respects.



First of all, no, I don't think Moses "did his own thing". When he tried that in Numbers 20, God punished him. Second, why does God (who is perfect) need to ask our (imperfect) permission? That is very democratic of you - very American ... but we didn't elect God.

Solace,

If God really told Moses to plunder, rape, and destroy we can only fear him.

God returns to his Hebrew Scripture nature in a horrifying was in the Book of Revelation

If God considered me to be his enemy then I would have something to fear. Well, God did consider the Midianites to be his enemy and the enemy of his people. So God's enemies have plenty to fear.

Of course, if God didn't tell Moses to do those things then the matter is different. Personally, I don't think God told Moses anything, not in a literal sense. But whether or not God told Moses anything literal, the story that we read in Numbers remains the same. So it is making sense of that story that we attempt here.

Solace,

Your view is fundamental. Jesus who was God incarnate, said "blessed are the little children of such is the kingdom of God". Not the little Christian but "all children?

In another verse Jesus (who is also the unchanging God) , says "It is better for one who hurts one on my little ones that he/she was never born". "It is better for them if a huge mill stone be placed over their heads and be thrown into the deepest ocean

But in Numbers 31 he says "KILL THE LITTLE ONES" reconcile that to me

God is the same yesterday today and tomorrow , based on Numbers 31 he does change and changes radically.

The Midianites were also Gods creation and handiwork and no less evil than the Hebrews.

God gave me a brain to think with not just sit on and swallow any nonsense. And where does it say we can not ask questions!!

I know I certainly didn't say not to ask questions. I think if I were the sort of person who didn't ask questions, or answer them, I wouldn't bother coming to an online philosophy forum. Which isn't to say that no such person comes here, only to say that I wouldn't come here if I were such a person.

Yes, my view is fundamental. The Old Testament is fundamental. If I am to understand anything that is written in the OT I might as well adopt the fundamental view while reading it. It is scripture that is written for, and from the point of view of, a select group of people who believed that they were chosen to be set apart and different from everyone else. That's a pretty fundamental attitude. So how can we expect anything written in the OT not to be fundamental? Sure, some of it is more fundamental than other parts, but since all of it was written for them, and, at the time at least, not for us, then all of it is, in that regard, fundamental, as in fundamental to the Hebrew people.

And whether we like to admit it or not, whether even we agree with it or not, the OT makes it rather clear that the Hebrew were God's chosen people. Which wasn't to say that even in those days someone else couldn't become one of God's people, but according to the scriptures and Hebrew law, in order to do so that person would also have to become Hebrew. I ain't making this stuff up; it's just the way it was. And I can only assume it was the way God intended it to be.

Until Christ that is. Christ changed all of that; or, at least, he changed the way that we, the non-Hebrew, look at all of that. Does this mean that God changed? No, but it does mean, obviously, that God loosened up the constraints of what made someone his chosen.

Should you question the harsh actions of those of the OT? Absolutely! Christ didn't die for you to live by their law, but by his grace.

Jesus did not preach grace only Paul brought up that idea

And if you are correct then

"THE FEAR OF GOD IS THE BEGINNING OF WIDOM."

And 80.% of humanity are going to be tormented is burning sulfur day and night forever and ever. An infinite punishment for what is a finite transgression against God

Do you really believe this? Maybe I should change the title of this thread to God the Merciless .

And if you are a true fundamentalist, then you must believe only those born again will be saved from that hell. So based on that my first statistic of 80% is way off target, then 90 % of humanity will be destroyed by a God of love.

I am somewhat of a statistician and researched how many humans have ever lived, the answer is over 160 billion, how many of those were true born again Christians?

I have had a profound near death experience, and yes there is hells, but the deepest hell is reserved for the utterly depraved evil reprobates.

But God is hugely more merciful than fundamentalists give him credit for

Alan

Do these discrepancies in the views of Christ and Moses never give you doubts about the book as a whole...If you had separated the old from the new and gave it to fresh eyes they would never have guessed it was the same god..I was a devout christian but i never considered the old testament as anything like Christs teachings nor like like the later teachings of Paul etc..Fire and brimstone, wrath and hell was not Jesus..I still maintain Jesus was and if an individual, a great teacher who brought a new message of love and salvation. I might not believe that he was the son of a god i dont believe in but i do admire him and his message.

Alan,

Don't confuse the messenger for the message. I'm not even Christian, let alone a fundamental one. You asked how the God of Numbers could be reconciled to the teachings of Chirst. I attempted to do so. If you don't agree with my view on it then that's very well. I never I said I know all the answers. All I attempt is a counter to there being no way to reconcile it.

For what it's worth, I don't believe that Heaven and Hell are literal. I do believe in the afterlife, but I don't believe that either Heaven or Hell affects that afterlife, at least, certainly no more than either concept affects this life. Christ said, "The Kingdom of Heaven is at hand," not "The kingdom of Heaven is waiting for you after you die." As for Hell, there are plenty of people living in their own Hell as we speak. My point is both are metaphorical states of mind. Is that all they are? Perhaps not, but certainly they are at least that much.

Yes, you are right, Christ never taught us about Grace. But then, how could he? Before he died and was resurrected there was no Grace, at least not in the sense that we realize it as today. So what Christ taught us was how to live by the Law and to be Holy and righteous unto God by the Law.

So in essence, (and I'm sure that saying this will get me some criticism, but so be it,) what Christ taught us was something that only he could do. This is why I do not call myself Christian, because Christians attempt to live their lives by Christ's teachings, to do as he did, to live as he lived. (My apologies to all those who would say that I am generalizing Christians. But, let's face it, most if not all Christians claim to try to live by Christ's teachings.) But I know I cannot do these things, I cannot live by the Law. The Bible also says that if you break one law you break every law. Well, everyone breaks at least one, which means everyone breaks every law. Sorry but I won't live my life dedicated to a Law that I break constantly. That is not for me. If it is for you then I encourage you to keep the whole Law. And may God help you with it.

As for how many and which people are God's children I cannot answer you. God chooses who his children are, not me. Do I believe that everyone is God's child? No, sorry, but I don't. Do I believe that someone has to believe what I believe to be God's child? Absolutely not. My parentage does not rely on my beliefs. I could believe that I was born of a hippo from the planet Neptune, but that wouldn't change who my earthly father was. Nor would it change my Heavenly.

The stories of Job and of Abraham / Isaac are two examples that explain how God's benevolence in the Tanakh (what a Christian would call the Old Testament) is quite different than the more 'human' kind of benevolence in Jesus' tradition.

The Tanakh is the story of the relationship between God and man. The power of God, and God's expectations of man, are much more central in this work.

The theological treatment of this is sort of post facto. This is in part why the Old Testament is a DIFFERENT work of literature than the Tanakh, or Hebrew Bible. The translations, interpretations, and context diverged 2000 years ago.

Solace,

Jesus was not religious, indeed he almost despised them saying you generation of hypocrite vipers, you are like the tombs of the prophets all bright and shiny on the outside but dead mans bones on the inside

It is Paul who started the religion called Christianity not Jesus. The true church is a mystical body reflected in the person of the Christ being

I agree Alan... and I'm not sure what else I can say in reply.

Except that Jesus was religious: he was called Rabbi by his followers, a religious title denoting spiritual teacher. He was critical of what the Jewish tradition had become, but this criticism of religion does not suggest that Jesus was not religious: I mean, the guy prayed to God and instructed others to pray to God. That's pretty religious.



No, Jesus started the tradition which became Christianity. Paul, and a host of other evangelists, began the Church; Jesus began the reform movement that became a religion apart from Judaism. It's very much like Buddhism: the Buddha started the tradition, and only later did the Buddha's teaching become something apart from Hinduism.

Paul did not start the religion: he helped to bring the teachings of Christ to the Gentiles.

Historicaly jesus is not an inividual but a combination of myths and stories brought together by those who saw the essential message to be good.So much of the new testament stories are revamped pagan god myths..The virgin birth from a father god figure..the sacrifice, the ressurection,miracles all can be seen in roman gods such as mythras. The teacher Jesus may or may not have existed but his message of love and mercy certainly changed the world..We live in different times but the message still needs to be told.

In the ancient Jewish notion, Yahweh was benevolent toward His people. Yahweh was vengeful and violent toward those whom Yahweh declared wicked. The people in those days, who accepted the book of Numbers as one of their holy books, probably didn't have a problem with that.

I don't think it's possible to reconcile a modern Christian concept of God's benevolence with portions of ancient Hebrew Scripture that run contrary to it.

The real problem is that some modern people who claim to be Christians use such material to justify their own warfare against the people they perceive to be wicked.

I can never come to understand a god for just the jews became so important through christ who virtually dismissed the old testament by his teachings..If Jesus had not been created would jehova be apart of our religious history or would we all be visiting our old holy wells and oak groves ? This trying to associate the old test. with the new is bizarre in the extreme.

Well, Jesus was a Jew, of course, and I think it's clear that his teachings were primarily Jewish teachings. According to the accounts we have, he claimed to be fulfilling "the law" and he regularly quoted the OT, and treated it as holy scripture. He presents his teachings as the essence of true Judaism, in reaction against the corrupt form being practiced and taught by the "scribes and Pharisees."

In fact, one might well argue that Christianity, properly understood, is a sect within Judaism; Christianity, popularly practiced, is a heresy sprung from Judaism.

But to tie back to the theme, a lot of us both within Judaism and within Christianity, would say that the Yahweh of Numbers chap. 31 is not the object of our faith.