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.