Board index ‹ Morality

[Pyro]

When humans use violence against each other, that's (usually) morally wrong. When a rock hits your head it may do even more damage, but it's not morally wrong. That's because morality doesn't apply to rocks. Now I'm interested in whether or not morality applies to god.

The reason I'm asking this is because of some responses I've seen in other threads. Here are some examples (paraphrased):

God can do as he pleases.

God made us, so he can do what he wants.

Salvation isn't fair and it doesn't need to be fair.

This suggests that god is somehow outside of morality or above morality. This would mean that it would make no sense to speak of god as either good or evil, since that wouldn't apply to him. I want to check if that's indeed the case, hence my question. And if morality applies to god, is the nature of that morality the same as that of human morality? Meaning that it would be wrong to kill or hurt people and good to heal them and help them flourish.

[jimwalton]

Yes, morality applies to God. As a matter of fact, He is the essence and source of morality.

"God can do as he pleases." Yes, He can, but He only "pleases" what is good and right. God will never "please" what is evil or wrong or even mistaken.

"God made us, so he can do what he wants." Same answer. He will only ever "want" what is good and right.

"Salvation isn't fair and it doesn't need to be fair." I don't know who wrote this, but I strongly disagree.

> This suggests that god is somehow outside of morality or above morality.

God is neither outside of morality or above it. Morality is one of His attributes, and so it's part of His being: He is righteous and good and can be no different from that.

> This would mean that it would make no sense to speak of god as either good or evil, since that wouldn't apply to him.

Therefore this is moot. Since the premise behind it is faulty, the conclusion is false. God is good.

[Master of All]

> God can do as he pleases." Yes, He can, but He only "pleases" what is good and right. God will never "please" what is evil or wrong or even mistaken.

Doesn't god command the israelites to take underage girls as sex slaves in the Old Testament?

[jimwalton]

No, He absolutely does not. You have a false source or you have chosen to believe a lie. God does not command the Israelites to take underage girls as sex slaves in the Old Testament. If you have a text, I'd be glad to discuss it with you, but I can tell you with confidence that you are misinformed.

[Master of All]

Numbers 31

"13 Moses, Eleazar the priest and all the leaders of the community went to meet them outside the camp. 14 Moses was angry with the officers of the army(W)—the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds—who returned from the battle.
15 “Have you allowed all the women to live?” he asked them. 16 “They were the ones who followed Balaam’s advice(X) and enticed the Israelites to be unfaithful to the Lord in the Peor incident,(Y) so that a plague(Z) struck the Lord’s people. 17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man,(AA) 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man."

Is there a point in the bible where the israelites/Moses are punished for listening to Moses's evil command in Numbers 31? Or was Moses speaking on God's behalf?

[jimwalton]

Since your point was that God commanded the Israelites to take underage girls as sex slaves, I notice that this text says nothing about having sex with the girls, and it says nothing about sex slaves, so your position fails on both points.

When the text (v. 18) says "save for yourselves," the Hebrew word is from chayah, meaning "life." In other words, don't kill them. Keep them alive. Nothing about sex. Nothing about slaves.

God is saying rather than kill these girls, they could be taken and incorporated into Israelite families. They were taken back to Israel and adopted. Nothing about sex. Nothing about slaves.

The accusation that these girls were for "sex slave" purposes contradicts EVERYTHING we know about Israelite culture and about the this event. Let me explain, since I'l guess you have had access to the research or haven't researched it.

1. Most girls were married soon/immediately after they began menstruating in the ANE (circa 12 years of age or older), and since infant and child mortality was so high, the average age of the girls spared would have been around 5 years of age or slightly lower (life expectancy wasn’t a straight line, with childhood risks so high). Of all the horrible things ascribed to Israel in the OT, pedophilia is the one conspicuous omission. That these little kids would have been even considered as ‘sex slaves’ seems quite incongruent with their ages. And, at this tender age, they would not have been very useful as ‘slaves’ at all! Instead, the Israelite families would have had to feed, clothe, train, care, protect, and shelter them for several years before they could make much contribution to the family’s existence and survival.

2. Unlike the Greeks and Romans, the ancient Near East was not very “into” using slaves/captive for sexual purposes. Their owners used them primarily for spinning and weaving, contributing to the family's operations.

3. The Hebrews, in particular, eschewed the idea that fidelity and exclusivity was demanded only of the wife and not of the husband. Using the girls as sex slaves was considered abhorrent in ancient Israelite culture.

4. Even if we allow the age range to be older, to include girls capable of bearing children, the probability is that it was not sex-motivated, but population/economics-motivated. The Mosaic Law demanded that these captives were not immediately brought into the Israelite camp. Instead, they and their captors were kept outside the camp for seven days in a kind of quarantine period.

So, you're completely wrong about your assumption and accusation.

[Master of All]

If it had nothing to do with sex, then why did their virginity matter in deciding whether they lived or died?

Also, I love how you just ignore the fact that before this, God had commanded a genocide, as if that would ever be morally justified.

Also, women WERE taken as spoils of war for sex.

"Deuteronomy 21:10-14 English Standard Version Marrying Female Captives 1

0 “When you go out to war against your enemies, and the Lord your God gives them into your hand and you take them captive, 11 and you see among the captives a beautiful woman, and you desire to take her to be your wife, 12 and you bring her home to your house, she shall shave her head and pare her nails. 13 And she shall take off the clothes in which she was captured and shall remain in your house and (A)lament her father and her mother a full month. After that you may go in to her and be her husband, and she shall be your wife. 14 But if you no longer delight in her, you shall (B)let her go where she wants. But you shall not sell her for money, nor shall you (C)treat her as a slave, since you have humiliated her."

How can any of this be from a moral deity?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_slavery

The bible says that the punishment for rape is to pay the father money and to become her "husband".

There is nothing moral in the bible when it comes to sex or slavery. The god of the bible could have banned slavery and rape in the ten commandments, but instead most of them were taken up by vanity.

[jimwalton]

Thanks for asking the questions and for sticking in with the conversation. Glad to respond.

> If it had nothing to do with sex, then why did their virginity matter in deciding whether they lived or died?

It's because the Midianite women had seduced the men of Israel, both sexually (to adultery) and spiritually (to idolatry). Those women were guilty, but any girl who was a virgin hadn't been involved, so those girls were OK to bring back and assimilate into Israel. It had nothing to do with making sex slaves.

> Also, I love how you just ignore the fact that before this, God had commanded a genocide, as if that would ever be morally justified.

I'm not ignoring anything. If you've done any research on the subject, you'll quickly learn that the language of "kill 'em all" was ancient warfare rhetoric meaning "win a decisive victory." Archaeological examples from Thutmosis, Hittite king Mursilli, Ramses II of Egypt, the Merneptah Stevel, and Moab's King Mesha, along with the Bible, prove that those these kings declared "We killed 'em all!", those populations continued into the future. There was no genocide.

Also, in the Bible, the word cherem, often translated "kill 'em all," is misleading. It more accurately means "removal of something from human use." And though at times it means destruction, mostly of the time it means a thing it dedicated to God. In the case of the Midianites, the Israelites are taking away their identity as a people group—a much more accurate understanding. I can give you the full explanation of what's going on here, but it would have to be a separate post because of its length.

In any case, what is happening here is not genocide. The Midianites were a large confederation of nomadic tribes roaming all through the areas of Sinai, the Negev, and the Transjordan. The Israelites are not riding through the entire Middle East slaughtering innocents. If you actually read the chapter, you'll see that the particular Midinaites associated with Moab are the ones who are targeted. This particular collection of villages had been hostile to Israel. They are the target. By executing the 5 kings of Midian (v. 8), they are seeking to destroy their sense of identity (what holds them togethers as a people group), so they become powerless and leaderless. This is no genocide. We can discuss it further if you wish.

We also know the Midianites were not wiped out. They show up later in the times of the Judges (Judges 6.12. Gideon defeated them in Judges 7, but they're still around as a people group. The prophet Habakkuk (Hab. 3.7) mentions them in about 600 BC, so they're still around then. This is no genocide.

> Also, women WERE taken as spoils of war for sex. Dt. 21.10-14

They were not. You are wrong once again. As Wendy Alsup writes, "God restricted Israelite men from using captive women as sexual slaves. If a man desired a female captive sexually, he must marry her. This restriction seems to be the first in history limiting the sexual exploitation of captives. Earlier Egyptian laws and later Roman laws prohibited rape, but only against a citizen in good standing. Female captives and slaves, well into Paul’s day and even into early American history, were viewed not as citizens but as property without rights over their own bodies. This was not the case in the Bible." If an Israelite wanted a female captive sexually, he had to make vows to her in the covenant relationship of marriage, which obligated him to protect and care for her.

You'll notice in v. 14 that the woman was protected from misuse and abuse. This law was written to protect women, not to allow abuse. You've to it wrong.

> How can any of this be from a moral deity?

Because God is protecting the women of war, unlike what other cultures did.

> There is nothing moral in the bible when it comes to sex or slavery.

You've already shown that your knowledge of what the Bible teaches is woefully inadequate. The Bible doesn't allow abuse the it comes to sex or slavery. The Law actually protects both vulnerable groups. We can talk about it more if you wish, but you are wrong about all your assumptions and accusations.

[Sam Clemens]

If “Kill them all” wasn’t literal, then why would the virgin women need to be saved? None of what you are saying makes sense.

[jimwalton]

Thanks for asking. Let me explain how it makes sense. The women of these five cities had been involved in seducing the men of Israel, both sexually and religiously. They motivated the men to adultery, wreaking havoc in their homes, families, and communities, and they motivated the men to idolatry, wreaking havoc in their relationship with God. But any girl who was still a virgin obviously had not been involved in those activities. How could they be? They were virgins, and therefore hadn't had sex with the men. Therefore these virgins were innocent, and they were not to be killed. The Israelites were not to kill innocent people. It was a military action against military adversaries and those who were guilty of crimes, not against innocent by-standers or normal citizens. It wasn't genocide, and they were'n't taking the girls as sex slaves. There's nothing in the text even hinting at sex slavery, and God restricted Israelite men from using captive women as sexual slaves. It's an idea that's not in the text. You can't find it in the text because it's not there. It's only there by assuming it's there and reading it in, which is a false way to analyze the text and the situation.