> So it was just a partial genocide then? Partial genocides are somehow ok?

It wasn't even partial genocide. It was war where 5 cities were conquered. It was not the extermination of a people group. The intent of the war was, by killing the five kings and destroying their cities, to destroy the ethnic identity of that group of people. With no kings, they would stop operating as "Midianites" in that region and be absorbed into other tribal groups.

> The bible literally says take them for yourselves. What the heck do you think this means?

"Take them for yourselves." The word you have translated "take" is הַחֲיוּ, from chayah. It means "you shall keep alive." You are reading into the text "force," when the terminology is "spare." "Save for yourselves" simply means "do not kill them, but let them live." So that's what I ~~think~~ know it means. It was a command to be merciful, not to be coercive.

> And I am sorry to have to correct you again but we aren't just talking about women here, it is virgin girls that the bible specifically references.

You're not correcting me. You're right that it's not talking about women in general, but about virgins in specific. The women who were not virgins were the ones who had been part of the licentious worship of Peor (Num. 25.2), and they were to be killed to preserve Israel from contamination by that idolatry. Those women had also seduced Israelite men and brought about judgment from God. So the women who were sexually active were specifically a large part of the problem here.

The virgin girls couldn't possibly have been guilty of cultic prostitution or prostitution with Israelite men, so they are innocent and can be brought into the nation of Israel as part of their families.

Have you watched "Zero Dark Thirty"? The American military invaded the compound of Osama bin Laden, and shot most of those they came across. But when they came across an obvious innocent, that life was spared. That's what Numbers 31 is about.

> "Filthy virgins." You said it yourself earlier, they had to be 'purified' first.

Purification was ritual, not literal. Rituals of hair care, nail care, clothing, and mourning were all part of the process. There's nothing "filthy" about them.

> Is it right to kill children because of the actions of their parents?

In this case those sons were being trained to carry on the abominations of the fathers. They were the heirs of the family, the family "priests" being indoctrinated with lies and violence, and the future leaders of the country. It was right on three counts: (1) These sons would become the leaders, government officials, military leaders, and priests of the nation. They were the perpetuators of the crime. The sons were killed because they were themselves a threat, not just because of the actions of their parents. (2) The Pharaoh was perceived as the Father of the nation who had watchcare over the sons, and he was perceived to be the giver of life. This was a dramatic illustration that his power was false and all their ideas were lies. The nation needed to be set straight if there was any chance for them to accept the truth. (Which, by the way, indeed happened. Exodus 12.38 indicates that "many other people" left Egypt with them.) (3) The Egyptians had killed the sons of the Israelites.

With the 10 plagues, and particularly with this one, God is showing them on fast-forward the consequences of their own sin and idolatry. Without the hand of God sustaining them, their crops would fail, the heavens would stir with hail, and flies and frogs would devastate the land. Without the life-giving grace of God for those who follow him, all the firstborn will die. The plague is a challenge to their religious system by showing them what the consequences of their decisions will be, but in a time frame where they can appreciate the horror of it, recognize the lies of their false religions, and turn to the living God. He is not so much killing their firstborn as he is showing them that their own religious system is killing them all.

> Why did he do this (the flood)?

1. It was an act of judgment: The Bible tells us that beyond a reasonable doubt the people were thoroughly corrupt, completely wicked, and deserving punishment.
2. Evil had reached an unprecedented level and God acted to restore order. It was a "reset."
3. God's desire is for relationship, and relationship had become impossible in a world of intractable depravity. The only way to make relationship possible was to eliminate the people destroying his purposes without pause.
4. God had suffered personal loss, and sin had cause a great imbalance, and the flood brought his "ledgers" back into balance. Their sin had skewed the balance of good over evil. For him to allow such evil to stand in the books would be to the eventual ruin of all morality. Here God is "auditing" the accounts, bringing a sense of equilibrium back to creation where good will once again be greater than evil, as it always must be.

> You haven't responded to it at all, you are simply ignoring it. For the third time... Why does you God watch children being raped?

I've responded to this twice. I've said you need to do your own study on this issue. The writings on it are abundant. I've done my own writing on it, but it's basically too large for a forum like this. if you really want to know, do the homework. It's been well established that God can be both omnipotent and omnibenevolent and still allow evil to exist. As a matter of fact, evil has a role to play in this world. VERY briefly:

1. God can be good and allow the existence of suffering and evil, just as a surgeon or oncologist can even create suffering to achieve a greater good, which would not be achievable without the pain.
2. If God were to act to remove all suffering and evil (not just rape, but all suffering, because some would claim, "Hey, how come He stops rape but not ...?", it would result in us no longer being human. We would be robots under God's tyranny, incapable of reasoning, science, love, kindness, forgiveness, and a plethora of other things.
3. God has to allow evil as an expression of free will. He cannot deprive us of free will without depriving us of our humanity.
4. The existence of a dynamic world is so far superior to a static one that dynamism is essential to life. There have to be random mechanisms and various possible results for there to be natural processes and novel outcomes (neurological patterns, cardiac healing, reasoning, creativity, etc.).
5. Good and evil exist together, not dualistically, but dynamically to create a good state of affairs. Autophagy is one such example. Evil can actually be necessary for the good. The two thrive together. The same Roman Empire that brought us the horrors of slavepens also brought us the benefits of law, transport, trade, and communication.
6. There are some beneficial traits that come out of evil that could come in no other way (certain expressions of courage, compassion, persistence, hope, maturity, etc.) Evil and suffering can at times create good.
7. Evil has a role to play. Just as Frodo kept Gollum around, knowing that somehow he was necessary in the quest, so also evil has a role to play in the goodness of life.

There are many many reasons God does not intervene to stop evil. Please do some homework of your own, if you really care to know.

> It's not genocide of all the Midianites, though.

So it was just a partial genocide then? Partial genocides are somehow ok?

> The Midianite women were not "forced" to marry the Israelite soldiers. You just don't get how it worked.

The bible literally says take them for yourselves. What the heck do you think this means? And I am sorry to have to correct you again but we aren't just talking about women here, it is virgin girls that the bible specifically references.

> Wow, your bias is simply painful. "Filthy virgins"? Where does that even come from?

You said it yourself earlier, they had to be 'purified' first. The bible contains several references to women having to be purified before men can interact with them. One of my favourites is the part where women who have given birth to a boy have to be purified for a week, but if they give birth to a girl they have to be purified for two weeks because girls are more impure than boys.

> That's right, it was. Justice demanded it, just like the Nuremberg trials demanded the execution of Nazis.

Right but we didn't go about executing the first born of the Nazis because of what their parents did.

> If you continue with your outrageous bias, I'll just stop responding.

You literally just said that your God killed the Egyptian first born because they killed the Israelite first born. In your own words... "Pharaoh had murdered the firstborn of Israel, so Pharaoh lost his heir in exchange." Is it right to kill children because of the actions of their parents?

> What position are you in to judge? How much information on the exact situation and the people do you have?

I don't believe it even happened, I am an atheist remember. You are the one claiming that your God flooded an entire region. Why did he do this? Why did he drown entire families, young children, babies, unborn babies and all?

> I've responded to this twice already. I'm done.

You haven't responded to it at all, you are simply ignoring it. For the third time... Why does you God watch children being raped?

> You don't think, within the span of history including the mass killings in the Bible, that God has killed 10,000 five year olds in total as "judgment"?

Correct. I think it's nowhere in that vicinity. Not even close. In addition to that, you've planted your agenda in the question with the loaded term "mass killings," to which I don't agree. The terminology shows that you're not thinking about it correctly. Secondly, the populations of these events are quite small.

For instance, there probably weren't ANY babies/toddlers in Jericho when the Israelites came (Josh. 6). The 9-acre city could house 2000 individuals at the most, and they were most likely governments officials and a fighting force of about 1500. It was a citadel, not a city.

Ai was even smaller, about 6 acres at the time of the conquest. 1200 soldiers.

> Yes, I would think "most" Biblical scholars are Christian

My response was not doubting that most Bible scholars are Christian, but your assumption that most Bible scholars are biased.

> You don't think that those that think the Bible is their Holy book above all others would be biased towards this book?

There are different kinds of bias. One is objective information that comes from an insider, and the other is skewed information that seeks to manipulate. We get bias, but not necessarily distortion, when we hear women report about sexual predators and abuse. They are looking at the event from a very limited angle (bias), but we appreciate and respect their reports. Even though what they tell is from their leaning, we can still be hearing an objective statement. The same might be true to hear a Jewish victim’s report on the Holocaust, or any African American writing about slavery. Their bias is actually an advantage to show us what really happened. So a person can be biased and still act and write impartially and objectively. Biblical scholars' "bias" toward Biblical studies is an objectivity from an insider, not distortion from someone trying to slant the story.

> So you capture someone from a land in which you slaughtered their relatives in your God's name, then you "dedicate" them by forcing them to live for your God's purpose? I'm not sure how well that would go down.

Of course this wouldn't "go down." This, along with "mass killings," shows you're bias. Even the way you have phrased the question is like, "Have you stopped beating your wife?" Look at the loaded words you've used: capture, slaughtered, forcing.

The army kills the soldiers, of course. The women are treated with kindness, mercy, and dignity. They are fed, and shown that they won't be hurt. They are assured they are not going to be raped or taken as slaves. You see how this is such a different picture than the one you have painted?

> If there were a God that was concerned with his image, I don't see why he wouldn't send a "Newer Testament" that doesn't give inflated numbers of those he commanded killed. Could God himself not give an updated account of his message that one could read without extensive study of ancient history and customs?

There's no reason to give an updated account. If there were a God that was concerned with His image, He should be able to expect people to use the brains He gave them, understand the text properly, and not be so biased as to quickly jump to accusatory and judgmental conclusions. God expects people to think, not just judgmentally react with bias.

> Would this not appeal to a vastly greater audience who may not enjoy reading false figures of the amount of thousands of virgins who were captured?

The real problem is with the Masoretic Text (AD 1000), which for much of the OT is the earliest text we have. They are the interpreters who, I would say, skewed the text. Reading 32 groups instead of 32,000 makes so much more sense on so many levels, as do other texts with the same problem, such as 613,000 fighting men of Israel coming out of Egypt, which is absurd. 613 divisions of fighting men makes a whole lot more sense. if there were 2.5 million Jews in Egypt, they would have taken over the country, not fled. The stories of the Exodus don't fit a group of 2.5 million people. But if it's 613 divisions, then we have a population of about 25,000, and now everything makes much better sense. Don't blame God for the mistranslations of the MT.

> You don't seem to have read what I said. I said, "God doesn't do it." It's odd, then, that you turn around and say, "God does it and, eh, I'll give him a pass."

All Christians do not share your sentiment and many think these numbers of those slaughtered are accurate.

> Remember I said that genocide was never something that God commanded. I thought we covered this. There were certainly acts of appropriate judgment that God commanded.

Which is why I said, "And yet you say that if God did in fact command or perform the killing of every man, woman, child, and animal within a region that this would (at least probably, in your opinion) be right and not wrong."

> But your example of "10,000" is just begging the question and not realistic, creating a false scenario.

You don't think, within the span of history including the mass killings in the Bible, that God has killed 10,000 five year olds in total as "judgment"?

> I sense bias in that statement also. Seriously? "Most of it"?

Yes, I would think "most" Biblical scholars are Christian. Their belief in the book may very well motivate them to study the book. Would you not say your own faith motivated you to study the Bible at all?

I tried to look up statistics for the religious affiliations of Bible scholars but didn't find anything. Feel free to present me with the relevant information if I am wrong. I'll admit, I'm not for certain on this matter.

> And you're prejudicially assuming Christians just ipso facto are biased, which...is a statement of bias. I hope you can see that.
You don't think that those that think the Bible is their Holy book above all others would be biased towards this book? Come on.

> Dedication meant a life lived for God's purposes.

So you capture someone from a land in which you slaughtered their relatives in your God's name, then you "dedicate" them by forcing them to live for your God's purpose? I'm not sure how well that would go down.

> 2000-3000 years of gap. A different culture with a different worldview, a different cultural river, a different language, and a different cultural environment all call for the same thing: the requirement of interpretation. You can't just simply READ these spots.
There has to be cultural understanding, linguistics, worldview studies, etc.

If there were a God that was concerned with his image, I don't see why he wouldn't send a "Newer Testament" that doesn't give inflated numbers of those he commanded killed. Could God himself not give an updated account of his message that one could read without extensive study of ancient history and customs? Would this not appeal to a vastly greater audience who may not enjoy reading false figures of the amount of thousands of virgins who were captured?

> And this illustrates what I was attempting to address originally and what I believe to be a double standard at play. Man does it and the Christian labels the act heinous and terrible or at the very least morally dubious. God does it and "...eh, I'll give him a pass. He's greater than us after all."

You don't seem to have read what I said. I said, "God doesn't do it." It's odd, then, that you turn around and say, "God does it and, eh, I'll give him a pass."

> How did you arrive at this?

Deut. 21.10-14.

> And yet you say that if God did in fact command or perform the killing of every man, woman, child, and animal within a region that this would (at least probably, in your opinion) be right and not wrong.

Remember I said that genocide was never something that God commanded. I thought we covered this. There were certainly acts of appropriate judgment that God commanded.

> What amount of child death must be caused before an act becomes morally questionable? In your opinion, if God does it, there is no limit and God would probably be in the right no matter if it were 10,000 five year olds killed?

It's never a matter of quantity, but instead a matter of guilt. When people are guilty, judgment is justified. But your example of "10,000" is just begging the question and not realistic, creating a false scenario.

> Most of that being done by Christians with a clear bias.

I sense bias in that statement also. Seriously? "Most of it"? And you're prejudicially assuming Christians just ipso facto are biased, which...is a statement of bias. I hope you can see that.

> Even if one agrees, this "awfulness" that includes the implied death of pregnant mothers and, as such, the fetuses they carry would at the very least be allowed by God himself if not directly caused by God as "judgment", right?

No, not right. The people of the world operate as free agents in a cause-and-effect environment. God cannot interfere with people's free will. You're so eager, and it seems driven, to condemn God.

> If these people literally think God is on their side giving them the OK, what makes you think they would abide by all laws on the books?

They were the people of the covenant. It's what defined them as a people group. Sexual purity was a BIG DEAL in ancient Israel. God had many clear expectations.

> How does one "dedicate" a person to God?

Dedication meant a life lived for God's purposes.

> I don't know how you've concluded that, with all this rhetoric and hyperbole taking place, that none of the reported acts/miracles of Jesus come down simply to just that, rhetoric and hyperbole.

We look at the nature of writings, the declared and implied purposes of the author, the literary milieu at the time, the literary tools common to each author and how he uses them. As you know, the Bible is the most deeply studied book in history.

> It seems there's a pattern of "damage control", if you will, I have seen from your posts that tries to spin any act within the Bible that is blatantly cruel and heinous into something that someone might say, "Eh, that's not too bad."

It's not so much damage control and spin but rather that there are SO many distortions, attacks, misconceptions, false interpretations, and accusations, that I have to correct one thing after another ad infinitum. It's a constant stream of, "No, that's incorrect."

> one wonders why have such seemingly despicable acts attributed to God in the first place that needs so much explanation?

2000-3000 years of gap. A different culture with a different worldview, a different cultural river, a different language, and a different cultural environment all call for the same thing: the requirement of interpretation. You can't just simply READ these spots. There has to be cultural understanding, linguistics, worldview studies, etc.

> Why include false numbers inflating death tolls?

Hyperbole was their cultural and linguistic mechanism to describe victory.

> God must be onboard with the numbers of those he commanded to be killed being magnified perhaps 100 or 1000 times and women and children being among the listed killings.

The authority of the text is not in the locutions (the words, phrases, and genres), but rather in the illocutions (what God is saying). God accommodated their scientific worldview, their cultural ways of expression, their poetry styles of the era, and even their particular linguistic style (which scholars tell us is unique to each era, just like the vernacular of the 1960s, 1980s, and 2000s are noticeably distinct) in order to communicate. But the authority of the text is not in the locutions, but rather in the illocutions (what the prophesy is telling us, what the story is an example of, etc.).

> Yeah, probably, but it never happened.

And this illustrates what I was attempting to address originally and what I believe to be a double standard at play. Man does it and the Christian labels the act heinous and terrible or at the very least morally dubious. God does it and "...eh, I'll give him a pass. He's greater than us after all."

> If they wished to be married, they could take them back to their homes, comply with a month of rituals, and then be married.

How did you arrive at this?

> I agree in one sense. In another sense, right is right and wrong is wrong no matter who is involved.

And yet you say that if God did in fact command or perform the killing of every man, woman, child, and animal within a region that this would (at least probably, in your opinion) be right and not wrong.

What amount of child death must be caused before an act becomes morally questionable? In your opinion, if God does it, there is no limit and God would probably be in the right no matter if it were 10,000 five year olds killed?

> We don't too much have to wonder. Biblical scholarship is 2500 years old. We pretty much known where the hyperbole is.

Most of that being done by Christians with a clear bias.

> Jesus is prophesying the awfulness of what is coming because fo their rebellion.

Even if one agrees, this "awfulness" that includes the implied death of pregnant mothers and, as such, the fetuses they carry would at the very least be allowed by God himself if not directly caused by God as "judgment", right?

> It was against the Law for a POW to be treated as a sex object.

If these people literally think God is on their side giving them the OK, what makes you think they would abide by all laws on the books?

> The word for "tribute" speaks of dedication, not sacrifice.

How does one "dedicate" a person to God?

While I might not be a Biblical scholar as far as my knowledge of the Bible and the customs of the time it was written and some of my assessment of the above verses might have been lacking or off, one can still plainly see some very questionable, and thus "morally dubious", acts of God all throughout the Bible. One could list probably at least 500 more verses of morally dubious behavior of God.

I don't know how you've concluded that, with all this rhetoric and hyperbole taking place, that none of the reported acts/miracles of Jesus come down simply to just that, rhetoric and hyperbole.

It seems there's a pattern of "damage control", if you will, I have seen from your posts that tries to spin any act within the Bible that is blatantly cruel and heinous into something that someone might say, "Eh, that's not too bad." You might have good reason to say that for some of the verses yet I'm not convinced your assessment of all of them is accurate. Even if your assessments were all accurate, one wonders why have such seemingly despicable acts attributed to God in the first place that needs so much explanation? Why include false numbers inflating death tolls? Is it to make God seem more mighty and thus more fear inducing? Yes, you alluded to that being the custom at the time although, if you think as many Christians do that the Bible is at the very least inspired by God himself, God must be onboard with the numbers of those he commanded to be killed being magnified perhaps 100 or 1000 times and women and children being among the listed killings.

> Let me pose a question: If God himself did perform or did command the performing of complete slaughter of every man, woman, child, cow, pig, etc. would you not still see that as right and not morally dubious?

Yeah, probably, but it never happened. As I mentioned, the population didn't live in the cities. They were farmers and shepherds, and they lived out and about. Some were Bedouins, and therefore wanderers. The ones who lived in the cities were the political rulers and the soldiers. So even when the Israelites destroyed the city (like Jericho or Midian, where the killed the population) or burned it (Jericho, Ai, and Hazor were the only cities they burned), who they were killing were the king and his court and the soldiers. At Midian, they also were supposed to kill the animals. For instance, Jericho and Ai were garrisons, not cities for the general population. Dr. Paul Copan writes, "Israel’s wars were directed towards governmental and military installments, where the king, his army, and the priesthood resided. The use of 'women' and 'young and old' was merely stock ancient Near Eastern language that could be used even if women and young and old weren’t living there. The language of 'all' ('men and women') at Jericho and Ai is a stereotypical expression for the destruction of all human life in the fort, presumably composed entirely of combatants. The text doesn’t require that women and young and old must have been in these sites."

> Numbers 31, we have God commanding the ransacking of the Midianites. Verse 32-40 says: The plunder remaining from the spoils that the soldiers took was 675,000 sheep, 72,000 cattle, 61,000 donkeys and 32,000 women who had never slept with a man.

Plunder figures are almost always hyperbolic in the ancient Near East. These numbers (Num. 31.32) are even higher than those confiscated in the campaign of Thutmose III of Egypt during his campaign against ALL the northern Canaanite cities. The Karnak temple accounts mention plunder of 1929 cattle, 2000 goats, 20,500 sheep, and 2503 slaves (men, women, and children), along with a variety of physical objects such as gold bowls and ebony statues.

So we can ascertain that these plunder figures are grossly exaggerated, as was the custom of the day. Another possible aspect is that the same words for "thousands" is also the word for "division" or "clan." It's more likely they brought back 675 groups of sheep, not 675,000, for instance.

> is capturing virgin women (perhaps some 32,000 of them, perhaps less) as war booty not morally dubious behavior to you?

There were most likely 32 groupings of women, not 32,000. That number is out of control. If they wished to be married, they could take them back to their homes, comply with a month of rituals, and then be married. It was against the Law for a POW to be treated as a sex object. If the marriage didn't work out, they had to treat her with respect and release her, not just kick her to the curb.

> Notice the human sacrifice within those verses.

There's no human sacrifice in these verses. Evidence is pretty slim for human sacrifice anywhere in the ancient Near East, though there is some. For Israel it's slim to nonexistent. The word for "tribute" speaks of dedication, not sacrifice.

> Also, seeing that there is rhetoric and propaganda within the Bible, one would have to wonder where it stops.

We don't too much have to wonder. Biblical scholarship is 2500 years old. We pretty much known where the hyperbole is.

> Perhaps the entire story of Jesus was only meant as rhetoric and propaganda as well.

There's no reason or evidence to think this is so. The Gospel accounts were written as theological historiography, not as rhetoric and propaganda.

> I'm perfectly fine with saying humans aren't perfect, something Christians can't do for their God.

We don't have to justify the actions of God. He's the police force and the courtroom judge, bringing guilty people to proper justice. There's nothing morally dubious.

> I would hope one would hold a being that is said to be perfection and righteousness itself to a higher standard than humans, wouldn't you agree?

I agree in one sense. In another sense, right is right and wrong is wrong no matter who is involved.

> God specifically gives instructions for some kind of abortion ritual in Numbers 5:11-31.

I always get somewhat of a kick out of the posts on this forum by atheists. You all use the same texts, as if you're all checking the same websites. There are texts in the Bible far more worthy of discussion, but I'm not sure too many atheists are actually reading the Bible as much as cutting and pasting from the website lists. I'm not saying you're doing this, because I don't know where you get your information, but it always comes out as the same handful of texts. Many critics, I'm guessing, aren't actually reading and studying but are just using an Internet list.

Numbers 5.11-31 isn't a step-by-step abortion guide. There is nothing in the Kool-Aid that will cause abortion. The text is about a woman who is accused of hooking up, and whose husband is upset, obviously, and wants her to come clean on it. First, he is to take an offering to God as a way to ask the Lord's participation in the proceedings. Then the wife is to drink some water from the tabernacle mixed with some dust from the tabernacle floor, both of which would be symbols of their relationship with God and their (supposed) commitment to honor him. By drinking the water, she would in effect be agreeing to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Then when the priest asks her if the accusation is true or not, she's bound to her word. That's the point anyway. And then if it is shown that she was faithful and her husband is just suspicious, then God will bless her, and if it is shown that she was a naughty girl and did the wild thing (or if she lies about it to cover it up), that God would punish her for that breach of covenant, both with him and with her husband. But it's far from a step-by-step abortion guide.

Other cultures used a "trial by ordeal" kind of process where the accused is placed "in the hand of God" by some mechanism, generally one that will put the accused in jeopardy, such as drinking poison or being set on fire. And if the deity intervenes to protect them, then that's a declaration of acquittal. Obviously, this is a "guilty until proven innocent" scenario. Hammurabi used a "river ordeal" for trials in his court.

This process, outlined in Num. 5.11-13, involves neither magic nor danger, but simply creates a symbolic situation for the woman to tell the truth and for God to respond. The woman here is presumed innocent until circumstances (directed by the Lord) show otherwise.

> I wouldn't expect God to take pity on those in the womb based on verses such as Mark 13:17 which says "But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days!"

Mark 13 isn't an issue of God not taking pity but rather of the inconveniences of war. When the Romans invaded Palestine from AD 66-73, they were brutal. Jesus is prophesying the awfulness of what is coming because fo their rebellion.

> Hosea 9.14

Am I to assume you've read and studied Hosea? ; )

Hosea is prophesying the end of the northern 10 tribes via their conquest by Assyria in 722 BC. Their sin and apostasy have reached a level of hopelessness, and judgment is the only option left. Hosea 9.14 is a prophecy that Israel as a nation will come to an end. Their country and people will cease to exist. There will be no more children. The image Hosea uses is both poetic and terse, using the adverse language to Genesis 49.25. God is not intending "to give women wombs that miscarry." Through the stress and brutality of war, children will no longer be born who are "Israelite."

If you've studied the Bible, you are familiar with its literary techniques, the style of the prophets, and the language of judgment.

> Hosea 13.16

Here Hosea is using a literary technique called metonymy. In verses 12-13 it is clear that Hosea is using the image of a pregnant women and the fetus inside as a metonym for discipline (judgment). God's disciplinary judgment is "growing in the womb," and it is about to be born. While God has been patiently waiting, the time of delivery is upon the rebellious and the evil. Its onset is imminent, just like a woman in labor. So when the time of judgment comes, it will not just be a calm and normal birth, delivering the child gently by candlelight, but it will be as if the child were ripped from its mother’s womb and dashed to the ground, their evil has been so great and their judgment so deserved.

In addition, Hosea is using a rhetorical technique. Common ancient Near Eastern warfare rhetoric included wiping out populations (though that was rarely done), burning young children (though that was even more rare), and even tearing open pregnant woman (almost nonexistent). But it was the way they spoke when they were expressing their intent to devastate the enemy.

In other words, none of this is literal. It is metonymy and rhetoric to express the depth of God’s wrath and the completeness of the judgment.

> I'm sure there's more verses to point to but, in short, the God of the Bible seems to not care any more about fetuses in the womb than humans do.

Hopefully you can see how this is a false conclusion. Hosea uses literary techniques. This is not the language of antipathy toward fetuses in the womb.

> Of course the Bible says, "Kill them all—men, women, and children." But that was rhetoric, and they understood that.

You can certainly make a case for that I'd say, yet many Christians believe these acts to actually have happened, as in the complete slaughter of whole civilizations.

Let me pose a question: If God himself did perform or did command the performing of complete slaughter of every man, woman, child, cow, pig, etc. would you not still see that as right and not morally dubious?

Now perhaps, as you say, it might not have been all men, women and children slaughtered as is said in some of the passages.

That aside, in passages such as within Numbers 31, we have God commanding the ransacking of the Midianites. Verse 32-40 says: The plunder remaining from the spoils that the soldiers took was 675,000 sheep, 72,000 cattle, 61,000 donkeys and 32,000 women who had never slept with a man.

The half share of those who fought in the battle was: 37,500 sheep, 37 of which the tribute for the Lord was 675; 36,000 cattle, of which the tribute for the Lord was 72; 30,500 donkeys, of which the tribute for the Lord was 61; 16,000 people, of whom the tribute for the Lord was 32.

Notice the human sacrifice within those verses.

Do you think all of these numbers are inflated and untruthful? Even if so, is capturing virgin women (perhaps some 32,000 of them, perhaps less) as war booty not morally dubious behavior to you?

Also, seeing that there is rhetoric and propaganda within the Bible, one would have to wonder where it stops. Perhaps the entire story of Jesus was only meant as rhetoric and propaganda as well. The feeding of the 5000 could turn into sharing his food with 5 others. The walking on water could turn into Jesus stepping into a puddle.

> Many people perceive abortion as genocidal, and certainly "morally dubious behavior." We kill more children with abortions than died in any war. You fault God for killing children as morally dubious behavior, and yet when we play God and determine whether a child within a mother’s womb should live, we argue for that as a moral right. So when human beings are given the privilege of playing God, it's called a moral right. When God plays God, we call it an immoral act. Can you justify this for me?

I'm perfectly fine with saying humans aren't perfect, something Christians can't do for their God.

Saying, "Yeah, but what about this bad thing humans do?" is simply the whataboutism fallacy.

Beyond that, although I'm not in favor of outlawing abortion, I would say it could very well be called "morally dubious behavior". Dubious meaning, of course, "not to be relied upon; suspect." and/or "of questionable value."

I would hope one would hold a being that is said to be perfection and righteousness itself to a higher standard than humans, wouldn't you agree?

God specifically gives instructions for some kind of abortion ritual in Numbers 5:11-31.

I wouldn't expect God to take pity on those in the womb based on verses such as Mark 13:17 which says "But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days!"

Hosea 9:14 says God intends to give give women wombs that miscarry. Hosea 13:16 has God saying: The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant women ripped open.”

I'm sure there's more verses to point to but, in short, the God of the Bible seems to not care any more about fetuses in the womb than humans do.

> Dt. 21.18 and the "stoning" of a stubborn and rebellious son

God delegated authority for maintaining order to human agents: kings, judges, and parents. In ancient Israel, rebellion against authority was equivalent to rebellion against God.

With disobedient children, the goal was to instruct (Dt. 21.18). Here we aren't talking about the typical kid who won't clean up his room, doesn't come home at curfew, or yells at Mom & Dad. The text is talking about a hardened, insubordinate delinquent—more like a sociopath—who is violent, incorrigible, and untamable. He's a threat to people and to society at large. He is obviously a repeat offender (v. 18). The problem, if left unchecked, will have a devastating effect on the wider community.

What is at stake is the social order vs. anarchy, morality vs. degeneracy, and the survival of a nation. If children do not learn to respect authority, eventually all social constructs for the good of society—courts, police, governments—will be supplanted. Each person will act in self-interest, and society will collapse. Children honoring their parents is the most foundational expression of social order and a moral consciousness.

When a breakdown of family order occurred, it became a threat to the community as a whole. The language of Dt. 21.18-21 makes it clear that a repudiation of the covenant was involved. Not only the parents and their authority are being rejected, but God and his sovereignty as well. The text makes it clear that the son is beyond reform. His character is incorrigibly depraved, and he is a habitual offender (18, as I said). You'll notice also that the parents don’t take matters into their own hands, but they confer with the civil authorities (v. 19), who are responsible for keeping an orderly, godly-functioning society. The community must work together to exercise its social responsibility and subdue the destructive element.

> And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man."

What's the problem here? If they find a woman they want to marry, they bring her back home with them and perform 30 days of rituals. After that, he may take the woman as
his wife. If the marriage doesn't work out, he is to release her. Have you studied the text and the other similar teachings in the Torah to get the whole picture?

> Ah so it was only some of the first born who were killed, that just makes it all better then doesn't it?

Remember that the Egyptians had slaughtered the children of the Israelites. So, first of all, this punishment fits the crime: the children of the murderers are taken from them. Second, the Pharaoh claimed to have power over life and death. Obviously he was a liar and imposter, and misleading the people into crime and sin. The punishment fits the crime.

> Cool, so God didn't drown every child, just all the children across a large region?

Perhaps you'd like to enlighten me as to how many children died in the event? And while you're at it, let me know how those children were being trained (raise)—what kind of people they were being taught to be.

> > The problem of evil and suffering in the world is a long and complex discussion...
> No it isn't.

Sorry, then you just haven't studied it.

> What we are told is that God will be perfectly fair.

Yeah I don't really trust that the God of the bible is going to be fair...

> God never did any such thing.

"If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother... And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear."

> What sounds like commands to genocide are ancient warfare rhetoric for "win a decisive victory," like our sports rhetoric for "win a decisive victory" is "kill, kill, kill."

“Have you allowed all the women to live?” he asked them. “They were the ones who followed Balaam’s advice and enticed the Israelites to be unfaithful to the Lord in the Peor incident, so that a plague struck the Lord’s people. Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man."

A decisive victory involves killing all the children, except for the young virgin girls who you are to keep for yourself? I play and watch a fair bit of sport but I don't remember that being a part of the rhetoric.

> The language of the plagues was hyperbole. It says in one that all the cattle were killed, and then in the next one it tells us about the cattle. Then in the next one "all" the cattle are again killed, and then following that we learn more about the cattle. "All" the firstborn of the entire nation were not killed.

Ah so it was only some of the first born who were killed, that just makes it all better then doesn't it?

> It wasn't a global flood, but a large regional one.

Cool, so God didn't drown every child, just all the children across a large region?

> The problem of evil and suffering in the world is a long and complex discussion...

No it isn't. If you, or I, were witness to a child being raped we would do everything within our power to stop it happening. Your God on the other hand just sits there watching it happen and maybe punishes the rapist later.