Have any Christians actually read the Old Testament? Here Moses directs the killing of non-virginal women:?

Question

Other slaves were spoils of war. On their way out of Egypt, when they fought against the Midianites east of the Sinai, the people of Israel 'slew every male' but 'took captive the women of Midian and their little ones.' Then they brought the captives to Moses. He said it would be better to kill the grown women, and save just 'the young girls who have not known man by lying with him.' So 32,000 Midian virgins got Hebrew husbands (Numbers 31: 15-35). Even before they left Canaan, Jacob's daughter Dinah got raped by a Hivite prince, and her brothers obliterated the Hivite males, but saved 'all their little ones, and their wives' (Genesis 34:29). Then after they'd resettled in Canaan, Jacob's son Benjamin's descendants went looking for girls in Jabeshgilead, and destroyed every man and every woman who'd 'lain with a male,' but brought 400 virgins back to Shiloh (Judges 21:11).

http://human-nature.com/ep/articles/ep03326346.html

Answer 1

Yep, I knew that. The question is, do you know WHY?

Answer 2

What's ironic is I just read about this a few hours ago... and then stumbled across your question including mention of the Midianites.

I think it's easy to misinterpret what was happening (and what the norm was at the time) because of our western mindset. We also don't understand the relationship between those nations at the time -- it's like trying to comment on the very current Israeli-Palestine behavior without knowing a single thing about the history of the conflict. Thirdly, this is simply history -- it's not a prescription for what the U.S. or any other country should do today. We are seeing a specific behavior at a specific point in time, and it needs to be judged on those grounds, examining the context and what ACTUALLY was being done (not a western interpretation of the events).

In a satire questionaire (http://www.tektonics.org/parody/rossenquiz.htm , Question #38), JP Holding bats this one around with atheist Loren Rosson -- their exchange is short, but the gist of what Rosson agrees to is this:

Israel in part was "mercifully absorbing these young girls into their population," but also believes it would be naïve to overplay that aspect and deny what is true about war in all times and places -- that many troops will want the expected spoils of a victorious army... Moses and the Israelites were no more (or less) sick than anyone else for taking spoils in war.

Like I said, Rosson is the atheist in this exchange, so his nuanced answer carries more weight -- the girls were spared and incorporated into the nation of Israel, rather than just being left to flouder alone or savaged by other less-kind nations or killed outright, but it was also common practice to consider everything belonging to the enemy as the "spoils of war."

In any case, yes, some Christians are not aware of much of the Old Testament; but others do read it, picking up along the way knowledge of the cultural history and such that will help them understand the context of what is happening.

Answer 3

Yes, I've read the Old Testament several times. God ordered the destroying of all the enemy people so that the people of Israel would not be lead astray to follow the various religions. On occassion, it was okay for them to take the virgins as wives. They had to treat them like wives, not slaves.

Answer 4

Christianity is a belief in and following of Jesus Christ, who was not in the Old Testament....he was only prophesied there. (It is used much more by the Jewish faith) So Christian beliefs mostly lie in the New Testament....the Old Testament is basically precursor events to the coming of Christ and, yeah, some of it was pretty heinous stuff ! Christ came to change the violence to love. That being said, I do realize there are an unfortunate number of my fellow Christians who use the Old Testament to justify their wish to be bad-asses with "eye for an eye"-style justice, etc. But then every segment of the population has a group that makes the rest of that segment look bad.

Answer 5

You should understand that STDs were common among those other cultures bc of temple prostitution. They worshipped by having sex. God had to order them to kill most of the ppl bc they had become so corrupted by their beliefs, additionally, they lived in a culture of revenge, as the Middle East still does, hence the ongoing conflict w/ Israel and Palestine. The fact that God allowed the virgins and the kids to live shows mercy. If they lived, the Jews would've been led away by idol worship, as they were a number of times.

Answer 6

Uh ...? Not to be overtly intellectual but the New Testament explains the responibilities of Christians with regards to the Old Testament. Jesus specifically discusses it with the Pharasies and it is also covered in Hebrews.

Answer 7

So what's the question? Yeah, you quoted scripture. Are you saying it should still be done?

Jesus said it shouldn't be done...whomever has no sin casts the first stone...

And yes, I read the Old Testament and teach from the Old Testament. I'm a Youth Pastor.

Answer 8

I don't think the Christians have any idea how evil their imaginary friend really is. The passage you're talking to describes not only the killing of men, women and boys, but the phrase "taken to wife" is a colloquialism for rape.

Think about this a moment. Imagine yourself as a 12 year old girl. An army of Jehovah has just burned your home, slain your parents, and kidnapped you. In order to live, you will now be inspected by the same men who killed your parents and family to see if your hymen is still intact.

Christians honestly believe that any girl child in these circumstances would gladly lift her dress so the bloody, sweaty murderers of her family can inspect their virginity

Can we say child molestation boys and girls?

Christians would have you believe that not only did they submit to this wonderful experience gladly, but that they were happy to become the wives of their kidnappers. Somehow, I doubt any of these innocent victims bandied about phrases like "Oh yeah Baby, watching you slaughter my family was so HOT!" before they were dragged off to tents to be "taken as wives".

So anyway, then the sick bastards went back to find more women to kidnap and rape. The sad part is that the basic plot points of Jabesh-gilead is fairly common in the Old Testament. God assisted rape, murder, genocide and general destruction are common. Read Joshua sometime, it's a long list of God mandated atrocities.

Christians worship a clown that glorified the God who assisted in these acts. They are blind to the fact that Jehovah is a representation of pure evil. They are also blind to the fact that Jesus said that the laws of Moses and the prophets should be followed for all time. Some of these laws state that children should be killed for dishonoring their parents, a woman who is not a virgin on her wedding night should be killed, rape victims should be killed if they are in a city and don't cry out, among scores of other immoral laws.

Instead, they read Paul, who says not to pay any attention to the Old Testament. I would think as a Christian, Jesus would be more important than Paul, but it seems to be the only way they can justify their belief that God is not a sick invention of Moses, but rather a "loving" imaginary friend.

-SD-

Fortunato brings up an entertaining point. It's a red herring. The clothing issue he describes is viable, but only to a degree. While it's true that there were clothing anomilies that showed a woman was a virgin, the existance of a hymen is the only distinct physical characteristic of virginal status. Clothing can be changed or modified. A hymen cannot be replaced.

So using the clothing as a marker for virginal staus we have another problem.

We are talking about a holy army here. Zealots. Lets assume for the sake of arguement that Fortunato is correct, and they were not physically inspected. That means they were raped first, then killed if their hymen was not present. Again, remember that these men were religious nutbags, and that life in those times was not easy.

How many women do you think were killed AFTER their "merciful" rape simply because their hymen had been torn while working or from some other strenuous physical activity?

Incidentally, I read the link Fortunato provided. It gives a lot of circular reasoning intended to confuse people. The author claims that "...the probability is that it was not sex-motivated, but population/economics-motivated..." then goes on to explain that the reason for their attack was that the men had no wives because they had been having sex with the women of Midian in the first place in participation of pagan ceremonies (which had destroyed their family unity and led them from God).

Gods answer to the problem? Take the virginal daughters of the Midianites as wives to re-populate the ranks. Just how this moron expects a race without women to re-populate without having sex with the women they kidnap is beyond me.

Incidentally, he later states that the girls were adopted into "families" which would indicate that they did have women, which, in turn, would seem to invalidate his arguement concerning the status of family unity. Beyond that is the human equation which seems to be missing from the entire article. The author at no time addresses the fact that this was a holy army bent on delivering their gods wrath. He at no time mentions the mental anguish of a child forced to live in a household of the people who murdered her family. At no point in his sterile regurgitation of biblical "history" does he hint at the fact that it is a wholey one-sided arguement intended to justify the wickedness of the Israelites. What I find particularly telling, is the authors insitance that the Midianites engaged in "unprovoked" sexual warfare, yet he seems to conveniently forget the the God of the Israelites himself proclaimed them to be the eternal enemies of the Jews. I would call that provocation, wouldn't you?

He casually avoids the probablility that these young girls were suffering from sever mental anguish caused by being torn from their homes and families to be raised in alien beliefs and customs. He lavishes warm phrases on the homelife of the Israelites, as if to show that any child under these circumstances would be happy and well cared for. At no time does he address the simple human concept of jealosy. He would have the reader believe that a wife who has left her husband for sleeping with the enemy is going to accept the constant reminder of his infidelity into her home with open arms.

In reading the article, two things become painfully clear.
1. The author seems to believe that 2 wrongs make a right as long as it is in Gods name. He seems to believe that an immoral act like murder justifies an immoral act like infidelity. Ironicly, he is clear in stating that the reason the Israelites committed murder was their own infidelity.
2. Any possible justification to these events simply leads to more problematic issues. Indeed, by denying that the rapes occurred, the author has suggested that the number murder victims was larger, as if that makes it all more reasonable. His rationalization places him in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation.

Which is more morally defensable, killing 16,000 more people (according to the authors figures) and not raping anyone, or killing less people and raping a mere 32,000 girls?

Personally, I find both of the choices reprehensible.
-SD-

Answer 9

whats your point exactly?

note the sarcasm

maybe instead of looking at how evil it was you should ask yourself why such an evil thing was allowed to happen and then study what biblical theologians have said on the topic for the past 3,000 years

Answer 10

So, yes I have read the Old Testament, what about it?

Answer 11

YES i have read the new testament, do you know why he did that?