Method of Madness: post-hoc reasoning and confirmation bias.

Whoever said god is responsible for rapes and killings is correct. Or don't you read the bible?

quote:

---

(from Numbers - Bible.org | Where the World Comes to Study the Bible)

​

31:6 So Moses sent them to the war, one thousand from every tribe, with Phinehas son of Eleazar the priest, who was in charge8 of the holy articles9 and the signal trumpets in his hand. 31:7 They fought against the Midianites, as the Lord commanded Moses, and they killed every male.

​

31:14 But Moses was furious with the officers of the army, the commanders over thousands and commanders over hundreds, who had come from service in the war. 31:15 Moses said to them, "Have you allowed all the women to live?17 31:16 Look, these people through the counsel of Balaam caused the Israelites to act treacherously against the Lord in the matter of Peor--and there was the plague among the community of the Lord. 31:17 Now therefore kill every boy,18 and kill every woman who has had sexual intercourse with a man.19 31:18 But all the young women20 who have not had sexual intercourse with a man21 will be yours.

---

Want more? Here is a list of links to God sanctioned rape and murder in the bible: Page not found – Evil Bible .com.This message has been edited by custard, 06-17-2004 05:25 PM

Baba-batman,I said nothing about Moses, the bible says this:

quote:

---

31:7 They fought against the Midianites, as the Lord commanded Moses, and they killed every male.

---

This is quite clear: they killed every male Midianite because the Lord commanded them, through Moses, to do so.Do you honestly contend that the Lord commanded Moses to fight against the Midianites, but not kill every male? That, for some reason, Moses decided to tack on 'oh, and kill all the males while you're at it' to the Lord's commands for kicks?C'mon man. The Lord said kill 'em and they did. How is that not murder?This message has been edited by custard, 06-17-2004 08:41 PM

Okay then, what do YOU think 'they will be yours' means? It sounds like slavery at best to me, but I'm open to your interpretation.The website where I found the scriptures referring to rape was evilbible.com, but I copied and pasted the biblical quotes from Bible.org | Where the World Comes to Study the Bible. How can these scriptures be any more biased than the printed version?

MTW,you didn't answer my question: Instead you dodge the question and imply that I am incorrect claiming God advocated murder because I quoted the OT.Are you telling me that you do not think the OT is the word of God? Are you saying that the events described in the OT are not accurate?I honestly don't know your personal position regarding this, so these are sincere questions.This message has been edited by custard, 06-17-2004 08:55 PM

Dude, I am being sincere and I'm not sure what I did to warrant your sarcasm. Wait. So if I kill you, take your virgin daughter, marry her, then have sex with her, that isn't rape? Eh? The Hunan? The Chinese? Dude, not following you at all here.This message has been edited by custard, 06-17-2004 09:28 PM

Jar,right, but, correct me if I'm wrong, you don't think that the OT is necessarily the exact word of God right? So if you read that the Lord commanded, through Moses, that all the male Midianites be killed and their virgin daughters taken as booty (heh heh), then you do you believe that God wanted them to rape and murder, or that men raped and murdered then used God as an excuse?

Hold Your Horses Batman!I didn't say god raped anyone. Let's slow down a bit.I understand what you are saying about humans being responsible for their actions, I agree with you.You said that the actions of taking virgin Midianites for the purposes of marriage, by killing off their mothers, fathers, and brothers, was not rape because the Midianite women were married.I think that since they were taken by force, that does constitute rape. It certainly doesn't seem like they had any choice in the matter.So I'm asking you, given the same set of circumstances, does killing a virgin girl's father and marrying her without her consent constitute rape? If you don't think it is rape, why not?

Absolutely, I think the OT gives us an example of what Jewish morality was like. I also think the laws that were 'published' (etched in stone, clay tablets, what have you) also give us some insight to ancient morality. For instance, you just couldn't murder your neighbor because you wanted his stuff or his wife.And, much like the laws regarding murder today, I think these laws were suspended and did not apply when dealing with an enemy. Today we prosecute soldiers who commit rape, but back then women were considered spoils of war.So yeah, I believe that the Midianites were murdered and raped, that the Jews attributed their success to god - and I say 'success' because I'm sure they didn't suffer any moral equivocation performing those deeds because the Jews probably didn't consider their acts immoral.

Hmm, what I am trying to express is that while I think the Jews did not consider their actions immoral, they indeed were.I think if it is considered immoral to murder your Jewish neighbor and take his wife, it is just as immoral to murder your Midianite neighbor and take his daughter.Because the Jews didn't see it that way didn't make it any less immoral from my point of view; I merely understand why they don't think their own actions weren't immoral: they were inflicting this perfidy upon other people.Something else that complicates my point is that I am trying to point out the hypocrisy of both ancient times and today: the claim that war isn't the same thing as murder and is exempt from the accepted rules of morality. I disagree, war, except possibly in self-defense, is murder; and if murder is immoral, then so is war. Today, yesterday, and six thousand years ago.This message has been edited by custard, 06-18-2004 12:43 AM

Well, yeah. I didn't realize I was supposed to imagine what my morality would have been thousands of years ago. If I were a Jew thousands of years ago I suppose I might think committing genocide was all right but I can't say that with any certainty since if 'thou shalt not kill' is a dilemma for me now when it comes to engagin in war, why would I think it wouldn't be a dilemma for me back then? (I'm sure I would have been killed as a heretic for asking too many questions anyway).What if I were a Midianite? Then I would certainly think what the Jews did to me and mine was immoral. Yeah, I admit that. I don't think 'thou shall not kill' or 'murder' depending on your interpretation is an absolute. If my life were threatened I would protect myself and have no reservations about using deadly force. Yes.

Yeah, I thought that might be where you were going.Yes. If an existing nation is physically invaded by another nation, then that nation certainly has the right to defend itself.

The threat would have to be the destruction of the nation. Economic threat, cultural encroachment, I don't think those are valid excuses for murder, if we continue to hold the state to the same criteria of morality that we use for the individual.

Believed? OK I'll assume that nation A believes, not suspects, but honestly believes that they will starve to death if nation B somehow blockades nation A preventing all food from entering.I'm not sure how nation B would pull of this action economically, but supposing it could, and if nation B knew that its actions were the cause of nation A's starvation, then that would be considered a hostile act. And, yes, nation A should be able to defend itself.Although nation A might be doing the actual 'attacking,' it is still a reaction to the hostile action taken by nation B so A is still defending itself.

Sure. So nation A faces such a dire financial crises that it will result complete collapse of industry, etc. etc.Yeah, we enter into the gray areas here. But yes, I think nation A is still under seige to the degree that it needs to defend itself. If force was the only alternative, then yes, I agree nation A would be justified in defending itself.The scenario is similar to a farmer protecting his crops from bandits where the theft of the farmer's crops will deprive him and his family from the means to survive the winter. I believe deadly force would be justified in both situations.

Right, you mean AFTER Japan invaded China and South East Asia? You mean AFTER the Rape of Nanking?Yeah, Japan committed atrocities and invaded their neighbors, we were certainly justified in cutting off supplies to them; otherwise, we would have been responsible for funding their aggression.Besides, our embargo wouldn't have destroyed their economy, it simply wouldn't allow them to continue to expand it at the rate they desired. They got greedy. Not appeasing greed and a hostile embargo meant to destroy a nation are two different things.I don't think this is a good example.This message has been edited by custard, 06-18-2004 12:17 PM