Skip to main content

Defending the Indefensible

By WizenedSage (Galen Rose) ~

Christian apologists usually manage to ignore the really tough questions posed by the Bible. But, occasionally, we read of one who will tackle a tough one head on. On the one hand we have to admire the fact that at least one Christian writer sees and understands that there’s a serious problem in this passage or that, but on the other hand, we can’t help but deplore a clumsy and/or dishonest explanation.

I came across just such an example recently on the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry site. The article was titled, “Why were only the virgins left alive among the Midianites?” (Numbers 31:17-18).

The article explains,
“The Midianites were descended from Abraham and Keturah (Gen. 25:1). They inhabited the land of Moab and were apparently involved in seducing Israel into going after false gods. Because the Israelites fell into idolatry this way, God told Moses to order the deaths of all who had bowed to the false gods in that land… Later, when Moses meets the returning Israeli army he was angry because he saw the Midianite survivors. The Midianite women, he said, should have died because they were directly culpable in Israel’s sin at Baal of Peor. All the women except the virgins were then sentenced to death along with all the boys. This insured the extermination of the Midianites and thus prevented them from ever again seducing Israel to sin . . . The virgins were spared because they obviously had had no role in the Baal of Peor incident nor could they by themselves perpetuate the Midianite peoples. Some may object that the Israelites then married the virgins, the daughters of those whom they had killed and that this would be a horrible thing for the virgins. Perhaps it was a horrible thing for them. But, their lives were spared. Also, in that culture at that time, warfare and plunder was a necessary evil. The reality of taking women as wives was unfortunate but true.”

Well, right off the top, the extermination of the Midianites – because they were Midianites - is genocide, pure and simple. Notice that Moses did not say, “Round up the suspects, try them, and punish those found guilty.” He just ordered the extermination of all Midianites except female virgins. So, this author is defending Moses’ genocide.

In that culture at that time, warfare and plunder was a necessary evilFurther, how were they to tell whether a woman was a virgin? Did they examine them all, or, much more likely, just select the very youngest? And how do we know the virgins were taken for marrying instead of for raping? There is nothing in that passage about marrying. Moses didn’t say, “Hey, you guys who don’t have a wife just take one of the virgins.” The Bible is clear that virginity is a treasure and virgins are “best” for sex, so I suggest that this writer is perhaps a tad naïve. And, if the virgins were really taken for marrying, the implication of this author is that they were to be married off whether they wanted it or not – to those who had killed their families! Talk about insensitive! And isn’t that basically rape?

He writes, “Also, in that culture at that time, warfare and plunder was a necessary evil.”

Why was war – except in self defense - necessary? And why was plunder necessary at all?

Further, “The reality of taking women as wives was unfortunate but true.”

The writer of this article says this practice was “unfortunate,” so he obviously thinks it was wrong, but won’t actually say it because it was god’s chosen people who were doing it.

This article amounts to a very poor defense of Moses’ immoral actions in this affair.

Now, how much evidence should one need that Moses was not simply carrying out the wishes of a loving, merciful god? Could it be any more obvious that the writer of these Biblical passages was a brutal, primitive man who felt that might makes right? Whatever he felt was right for him and his people determined whatever words he put in his god’s mouth. However, in our time we should have not only the good sense to recognize the immorality of Moses’ acts, but the courage to point it out.

The really sad thing going on here is that the apologist, when he wrote “The reality of taking women as wives was unfortunate,” clearly recognizes that action as morally wrong, but he will not stand up for it. He will not trust his own judgment. Instead, he tries to convince himself that his god must have had good reasons, though he can’t really think of any beyond that’s the sort of thing they did in those days. So, he writes that the action was “unfortunate but true,” as though somehow its being “true” explains something.

This is perhaps the ultimate evil in Christianity: it teaches people to not trust their own reason. And, once one brushes reason off the table, he becomes the perfect, utterly defenseless gull.


Popular posts from this blog

Are You an Atheist Success Story?

By Avangelism Project ~ F acts don’t spread. Stories do. It’s how (good) marketing works, it’s how elections (unfortunately) are won and lost, and it’s how (all) religion spreads. Proselytization isn’t accomplished with better arguments. It’s accomplished with better stories and it’s time we atheists catch up. It’s not like atheists don’t love a good story. Head over to the atheist reddit and take a look if you don’t believe me. We’re all over stories painting religion in a bad light. Nothing wrong with that, but we ignore the value of a story or a testimonial when we’re dealing with Christians. We can’t be so proud to argue the semantics of whether atheism is a belief or deconversion is actually proselytization. When we become more interested in defining our terms than in affecting people, we’ve relegated ourselves to irrelevance preferring to be smug in our minority, but semantically correct, nonbelief. Results Determine Reality The thing is when we opt to bury our

So Just How Dumb Were Jesus’ Disciples? The Resurrection, Part VII.

By Robert Conner ~ T he first mention of Jesus’ resurrection comes from a letter written by Paul of Tarsus. Paul appears to have had no interest whatsoever in the “historical” Jesus: “even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, we know him so no longer.” ( 2 Corinthians 5:16 ) Paul’s surviving letters never once mention any of Jesus’ many exorcisms and healings, the raising of Lazarus, or Jesus’ virgin birth, and barely allude to Jesus’ teaching. For Paul, Jesus only gets interesting after he’s dead, but even here Paul’s attention to detail is sketchy at best. For instance, Paul says Jesus “was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures” ( 1 Corinthians 15:4 ), but there are no scriptures that foretell the Jewish Messiah would at long last appear only to die at the hands of Gentiles, much less that the Messiah would then be raised from the dead after three days. After his miraculous conversion on the road to Damascus—an event Paul never mentions in his lette

Christian TV presenter reads out Star Wars plot as story of salvation

An email prankster tricked the host of a Christian TV show into reading out the plots of The Fresh Prince of Bel Air and Star Wars in the belief they were stories of personal salvation. The unsuspecting host read out most of the opening rap to The Fresh Prince, a 1990s US sitcom starring Will Smith , apparently unaware that it was not a genuine testimony of faith. The prankster had slightly adapted the lyrics but the references to a misspent youth playing basketball in West Philadelphia would have been instantly familiar to most viewers. The lines read out by the DJ included: "One day a couple of guys who were up to no good starting making trouble in my living area. I ended up getting into a fight, which terrified my mother." The presenter on Genesis TV , a British Christian channel, eventually realised that he was being pranked and cut the story short – only to move on to another spoof email based on the plot of the Star Wars films. It began: &quo


By David Andrew Dugle ~   S ettle down now children, here's the story from the Book of David called The Parable of the Bent Cross. In the land Southeast of Eden –  Eden, Minnesota that is – between two rivers called the Big Miami and the Little Miami, in the name of Saint Gertrude there was once built a church. Here next to it was also built a fine parochial school. The congregation thrived and after a multitude of years, a new, bigger church was erected, well made with clean straight lines and a high steeple topped with a tall, thin cross of gold. The faithful felt proud, but now very low was their money. Their Sunday offerings and school fees did not suffice. Anon, they decided to raise money in an unclean way. One fine summer day the faithful erected tents in the chariot lot between the two buildings. In the tents they set up all manner of games – ring toss, bingo, little mechanical racing horses and roulette wheels – then all who lived in the land between the two rivers we

Morality is not a Good Argument for Christianity

By austinrohm ~ I wrote this article as I was deconverting in my own head: I never talked with anyone about it, but it was a letter I wrote as if I was writing to all the Christians in my life who constantly brought up how morality was the best argument for Christianity. No Christian has read this so far, but it is written from the point of view of a frustrated closeted atheist whose only outlet was organizing his thoughts on the keyboard. A common phrase used with non-Christians is: “Well without God, there isn’t a foundation of morality. If God is not real, then you could go around killing and raping.” There are a few things which must be addressed. 1. Show me objective morality. Define it and show me an example. Different Christians have different moral standards depending on how they interpret the Bible. Often times, they will just find what they believe, then go back into scripture and find a way to validate it. Conversely, many feel a particular action is not

Why I left the Canadian Reformed Church

By Chuck Eelhart ~ I was born into a believing family. The denomination is called Canadian Reformed Church . It is a Dutch Calvinistic Christian Church. My parents were Dutch immigrants to Canada in 1951. They had come from two slightly differing factions of the same Reformed faith in the Netherlands . Arriving unmarried in Canada they joined the slightly more conservative of the factions. It was a small group at first. Being far from Holland and strangers in a new country these young families found a strong bonding point in their church. Deutsch: Heidelberger Katechismus, Druck 1563 (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) I was born in 1955 the third of eventually 9 children. We lived in a small southern Ontario farming community of Fergus. Being young conservative and industrious the community of immigrants prospered. While they did mix and work in the community almost all of the social bonding was within the church group. Being of the first generation born here we had a foot in two