• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

num (for Christians to answer)

true blood

Active Member
linwood said:
Moses was misled by god about Balaams council and if you read the story you know that.

Read all of Numbers 22 to see this story unfold.

Balaam absolutely refused to meet with Balak because god told him not to then the next day they sent for him god specifically told him to go "and wait for his word".

When Balaam went with Balaks messengers god got mad at him, after he specifically told him to go.
He sent an angel to kill Balaam for going but Balaams donkey saved his life

Balaam did EXACTLY everything god told him even when his orders directly contradicted themselves.

Balaam was a good Jew trying to do the right thing stuck between a despicable king and a jealous confusing god.



Yes this is morality for you...god tells Balaam to go to Balak(at Peor) and then accuses him (To Moses) of conspiring against the Israelites for being there even though he still refused to curse the Israelites as Balak angrily demanded and blessed them instead (as god instructed him to do)



I can understand that, the acts of this god are too confusing to even follow let alone justify.



I can find "meaning" in the word of god myself thanks.

So in conclusion, if you read the entire story the unethical behaviour of god does not lie in the killing of innocents alone.
God himself contrived this false conspiracy against the Israelites so that Moses would feel justified in destroying them.

The destruction of Midia was not merely gods answer to a problem it was gods answer to a problem he intentionally created so he could destroy Midia.

This is essentially the same story of Moses being sent to petition the Pharaoh for the release of the Israelites.

God tells his messenger to do something then puts obstacles in his path and makes it virtually impossible for him to succeed.

Both stories seem to have no other purpose than enabling god to kill innocents.

You need to learn certain idiomatic traits of Hebrew expressions. Active verbs were used by the Hebrews to express not the doing, but the permission of the thing in which the agent is said to do. It involves the concept of man's free will. But sometimes the Bible uses figurative terminology representing God doing the action but in fact he does not. The bible, then, clearly teaches that Pharoah hardened his own heart by yielding to the enchantments done by his magicians and refusing to submit to the will of God. And the Lord God let him go his own rebellious way that he might eventually demonstrate who really was in control. When Ezekial affirmed that God gave him statues that were not good, he cannot literally mean that the Holy God gave bad laws. Rather he is suggesting that when those stubborn people determined not to submit to Heaven's law, God permitted them to follow the statutes of the wicked pagan nations around them. And when Jeremiah suggested that God decieved the people of Israel, he really was saying that God allowed them to follow their own paths of self-deceit, and to eat the bitter fruits thereof. Remember Jeremiah foretold of the great destruction to be visited on upon the people of God but the people declared that this evil would not come, "neither shall we see sword or famine" and the prophet who declared such was full of "wind"? Since they were determined to be decieved God said "Go ahead and be decieved, I will not stop you"
 

linwood

Well-Known Member
true blood said:
You're not going to find the answer in Numbers. When you read a book and question why something had happened, usually, you have to turn back the pages to find out. The answer to the question is Gen 15:16. For real.

Gen 15:16 doesn`t speak of the morality of the act.
It does however prove my point that god had already decided to destroy Midia well before any supposed conspiracy between Balak and Balaam.
On a side note Balak was not even a Midianite leader, he was Moabite.
A small distinction I know.

I think you all have ignored the brutality of the surrounding religions during this time period. ...
When Israel came into the land God told them to completely destroy them "that they teach you not to do after all their abominations, which they have done unto their gods; for this would be a sin unto you Lord God."

I understand the Midianites held brutal practices involving child sacrifice and this is perhaps one reason god wanted them destroyed
It does not explain why he broke his own laws to do so..Duet 23:3 24:16

Also no one has the right to criticize God's moral activity unless you can establish and defend some geniune moral standard apart from God.

The Greek, Romans, Egyptians, Native Americans, and eastern religions have established their own moral standards without the god of the Torah.
Many early eastern religions/philosophies go far beyond what Christian morality teaches and hold the gods themselves to their moral judgements.
They don`t give their gods a free pass to break the rules just because they are the gods.

Also when you ask why God of the bible did such and such, I think its important to remember that God has enemies. Consider the thousands of demon spirits roaming the earth, the devil, and those born of the seed of satan. They all are mentioned in the bible as well. Doesn't the bible teach that there is an invisible spiritual realm that is unprovable?


The Bible teaches many things that are unprovable.

This is all beside the point anyway because ultimately you are right when you say it is unfair to judge the Israelites and the god of the Torah by todays moral standards.
However if that is the argument and defense of these acts the reverse must also be true.

What consistent moral guidance can this book possibly offer a person today?
It is irrelevant to our modern society and strictly following it`s rules have created some of the most horrible abominations we as a modern people have ever seen.

That final statement goes well beyond the scope of this particular thread and i won`t get into further here.

I would like to hear Chucks theory.

:)
 

Mister Emu

Emu Extraordinaire
Staff member
Premium Member
I don`t understand what you mean by "The Matter of Peor".
Wasn`t Peor where Balak told Bashaam to flee before he killed him for refusing to curse the Israelites?

The matter of peor, was the women getting the Israelites to bow down before Baalpeor, not when Balaam blessed Israel thrice.

When he blessed Israel the three times he was following God, when he goes home to Midian however he counsels the women to lie with Israel men and get them to bow down to Baalpeor.

And Israel abode in ****tim, and the people began to commit whoredom with the daughters of Moab. 2 And they called the people unto the sacrifices of their gods: and the people did eat, and bowed down to their gods. 3 And Israel joined himself unto Baalpeor: and the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel.

Nu. 25:1-3

This tells of the Midianite women getting the Israelite men to bow and sacrifice to the pagan gods.

15 And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? 16 Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD.

Nu. 31 15-16

This tells that it was Balaam whom counseled them to do so.
 

linwood

Well-Known Member
true blood said:
You need to learn certain idiomatic traits of Hebrew expressions.

No I don`t believe I do, by doing so I would create a style of comprehension that allows me to believe a statement or verse can have almost any meaning I wish it to have depending upon the idiosyncrisies of the translation i`m reading.

But sometimes the Bible uses figurative terminology representing God doing the action but in fact he does not. The bible, then, clearly teaches that Pharoah hardened his own heart by yielding to the enchantments done by his magicians and refusing to submit to the will of God.

If you are reading and comprehending the Bible figuratively as opposed to literally then it has no true meaning and teaches nothing "clearly" because you can attach almost any meaning to any parable to come up with the outcome you like.

The story mentioned above clearly states that God went to harden the Pharoahs heart against Moses` plea before Moses even arrived in Egypt.
As Moses and Aarons pleas started to "soften" the Pharaoh God would then "re-harden" his heart again for no apparent reason other than his own enjoyment at the impasse.

This also gets off the intent of the original thread and I don`t want to discuss it further here.
I will continue in another thread if someone wishes to make one.
 

Ronald

Well-Known Member
Linwood you have revealed yourself as a God hater, that you believe Him to be an evil, unjust and vengeful being. I am sorry for you. I'll not be a part of your thread again.
Good bye.
 
Ronald said:
I would need to prove there was a Moses, then prove there was an Israel, then prove they crossed the Red Sea, then prove they slew the Midianites, then prove there is a God who they claim chose them to reveal God to the nations. If I could do all of this there would be no need for God, so I respectfully decline. God has my permission to be Himself. LOL
No, you simply need to prove that God, not the Israelites, slaughtered the Midianites. Earlier when confronted by the horror of this genocide you said "I do not question Hashem". Did Hashem carry out the genocide, or the Israelites? Did Hashem tell the Israelites do carry out the genocide, or did the Israelites say Hashem told them to do it?

You say you don't question Hashem, but in reality, it appears you simply do not question an ancient desert tribe, because you believe everything they wrote.
 

linwood

Well-Known Member
Mister Emu said:
The matter of peor, was the women getting the Israelites to bow down before Baalpeor, not when Balaam blessed Israel thrice.

How is this "The matter of Peor"?
It was on Peor that Baraam uttered his 3rd and final blessing of the Israelites and angered Balak.
Did he also counsel the daughters of Midia on the mount of Peor?
If so, where does it say this?
One apologist here has already stated that "The matter of Peor" concerned the meeting of Balak and Baraam on the mount of Peor yet you read it as a reference to the fire god Baalpeor.
I don`t know if Baalpeor was ever refered to as simply "Peor" anywhere else.
If indeed this is what you mean.

When he blessed Israel the three times he was following God, when he goes home to Midian however he counsels the women to lie with Israel men and get them to bow down to Baalpeor.

I understand that but I still cannot find any reference to Balaam actually telling these women to do so.
Where does it say Balaam counselled the daughters of Midia to lead Isralites astray?
In truth Baraam wasn`t even in Moab/Midia or Jericho, he was in Pethora/Aram at the time which I believe is in Syria ...Numbers 23:7
Balak sent for him there.
I don`t see how Balaam could be conspiring with the daughters of Midia so far from the plains of Moab.
All the Bible says about Baraam after he refuses to curse Israel is that "he returned to his place...Numbers 24:25
Is Pethora/Aram in Midia?
Is it close enough for Balaam to have counselled the daughters of Midia?
These are honest questions, the geography of this era and area are hotly disputed.

Nu. 25:1-3
This tells of the Midianite women getting the Israelite men to bow and sacrifice to the pagan gods.

I don`t deny they did it I question their motives and how they came by them.


Nu. 31 15-16
This tells that it was Balaam whom counseled them to do so.

Yes, this is Moses stating that Balaam had wronged them, however I can find no reference anywhere in the book that Balaam was ever anything other than an honest prophet of God.

I can find reference disputing the possibilty that Balaam could have done it geographically.
I can find reference disputing that Balaam would have done it theologically.
I can find reference that Balam didn`t really care one way or the other because his part in this story ends when he goes home.
There is no further mention of Balaams deeds after his final refusal to curse the Israelites other than this one statement by Moses which has no supporting evidence but does have evidence in support of it`s extreme improbability.

Why would Balaam defy Balak at the risk of his own life not once but three times?
Not just refusing to curse Israel but blessing them instead in Balaks presence.
He absolutely refuses to harm the Israelites because God tells him they are a blessed people.
You`re telling me that after he makes this refusal he immediately goes down to Midia and conspires with the daughters to harm the Israelites.
Right after God told him not to.
Everywhere else in the book Balaam acts like a perfect prophet of God yet without any direct verse other than this one statement by Moses he is accused of harming Israel.

It sounds more like he was framed to me.
 

linwood

Well-Known Member
Ronald said:
Linwood you have revealed yourself as a God hater, that you believe Him to be an evil, unjust and vengeful being. I am sorry for you. I'll not be a part of your thread again.
Good bye.

I don`t hate God.
I cannot hate what I don`t believe in.

I do indeed despise the immorality of his book because when reading it literally you can come to no other conclusion but that he is as you say an evil, unjust, vengeful being.

He himself states that he is jealous and vengeful.
His actions show him to be unjust.
Evil? I won`t comment on it since it differs from belief to belief.

I`m sorry you don`t wish to continue this argument but I tend to believe it is more because you have no answer for your gods immorality than your disdain for me.
 
Ronald said:
It seems you are of the school that says, "don't believe anything a Hebrew writes."
One should not believe anything anyone writes until one has foolproof archaelogical, historical or scientific evidence for it. In the Hindus' Ramayan, a great war is described between the good God and the evil Ravana. That does not mean that the war happened. Similarly, this story could also be a myth.
 

johnnys4life

Pro-life Mommy
Actually God couldn't have been breaking His own law for 2 reasons:
1. God (the omnificent) is not bound by the same laws He gave to His imperfect followers. Just as a parent might say to a child, you are not allowed to touch the kitchen knives, and then go use them. An imperfect, corruptible human being is given laws by God because without them they would not know the difference between good and evil, whereas God does and can use them both for good.

2. If you read the actual text, you would see that the Bible never actually says "thou shalt not kill", rather it says, "thou shalt not murder". Murder, then is defined as the shedding of innocent blood. By all accounts, the people God commands to be destroyed are not innocent. God judged them as a people and not individually because their entire nation was corrupted. Perhaps, if there were a few that were not corrupted, taking them as wives would be a means of saving and protecting them, providing for them, etcetera (that is just one of my theories and I have no evidence to back it up other than that I know the character of God is good and not evil).
 

linwood

Well-Known Member
I will concede that there is much in the Talmud and other Hebrew writings that claim Balaam did indeed conspire towards the downfall of the Israelites but for the life of me I cannot find where these Rabbis get their commentary because I can find no reference of it anywhere in the Torah.
 

Mister Emu

Emu Extraordinaire
Staff member
Premium Member
How is this "The matter of Peor"?
It was on Peor that Baraam uttered his 3rd and final blessing of the Israelites and angered Balak.

I never read the names of the mounts, I was wrong. What happened on Mount Peor is that when Balaam saw that it would please the Lord to bless Israel again he decided not to ask Him what to do because he did not want Israel blessed.

And when Balaam saw that it pleased the LORD to bless Israel, he went not, as at other times, to seek for enchantments, but he set his face toward the wilderness

Nu. 24:1

Even though Balaam did not want to he ended up blessing Israel anyway.

In truth Baraam wasn`t even in Moab/Midia

And they slew the kings of Midian, beside the rest of them that were slain; namely, Evi, and Rekem, and Zur, and Hur, and Reba, five kings of Midian: Balaam also the son of Beor they slew with the sword

Nu. 31:8

Balaam was slain in Midian

I can find reference disputing that Balaam would have done it theologically.

When he realized God was going to get him to bless Israel again he didn't go to Him. Balaam did not want Israel blessed.
 

linwood

Well-Known Member
Mister Emu said:
I never read the names of the mounts, I was wrong. What happened on Mount Peor is that when Balaam saw that it would please the Lord to bless Israel again he decided not to ask Him what to do because he did not want Israel blessed.

Nu. 24:1

Even though Balaam did not want to he ended up blessing Israel anyway.

I can agree with that.

Nu. 31:8

Balaam was slain in Midian

When he realized God was going to get him to bless Israel again he didn't go to Him. Balaam did not want Israel blessed.

Ahhh..I didn`t take note of the end of that verse.
I`m wrong..Balaam was in Midia.
Thank you.

So Balaam was essentially a medium/prophet for hire which leads me to question the the singularity of the Judiac god but thats another thread.

So you have shown Balaam could have reason to conspire against Israel....perhaps.
But I still can`t see where it shows Balaam actually doing so.

I have found many commentaries on it in the Talmud and Midrash and other Hebrew writings but cannot find the source these Rabbis get their info from.

Is it the translation of the OT I`m using KJV/NIV?

Or is just their inference because Balaam was a gentile and less than holy prophet?
 

Mister Emu

Emu Extraordinaire
Staff member
Premium Member
So Balaam was essentially a medium/prophet for hire which leads me to question the the singularity of the Judiac god but thats another thread.

He was a medium, you would go ask him something, then he would see what God thought about it. Just because God chose the Israelites does not mean that he solely dwelt with them, if someone else worshipped Him He would be with that person/group of people too.

But I still can`t see where it shows Balaam actually doing so.

Well, there is precedent for his dislike of Israel, he was in the right place at the right time, and God said he did it :)

The bible never actually(as far as I've seen) talks about what specifically he said, just that he did do it.

Is it the translation of the OT I`m using KJV/NIV?

I use the KJV.
 

linwood

Well-Known Member
Thank you Mr. Emu.

I can accept the possibilty of Baraams part in a conspiracy.

Lets say for the sake of argument that Balaam did indeed contrive to lead the Israelites astray from the morals of god in order for them to be more easily defeated.

There is nothing morally wrong with this tactic as far as I can see considering the Israelites had just cut a path of death and destruction through the nations of Canaan in order to spread out on the plain of Moab.
Isn`t Balaks attempt at a "pre-emptive" strike justified since he could already be pretty certain the Israelites would do the same to him?
Which they did indeed do and would have regardless of their rationale.

The only question to ask is ..why?

The only reason I can come up with through the study of the scripture is that God feared (rightfully so) that these nations would influence the Israelites to do things against their gods wishes and commandments.

So when you get right down to it these nations were destroyed because God himself had no faith in the strength of the Israelites to reject false teachings.
God didn`t really destroy these nations because they were evil, he destroyed them because he feared his chosen people would follow these cultures if allowed to survive intact.

It`s as if God gives you free will to do as you wish and then keeps you from doing it through the threat of death and damnation and the removal of any outside influence.

Sounds kinda like many churches today.
 

Mister Emu

Emu Extraordinaire
Staff member
Premium Member
Well it was a mix of three things.

1. They were wrong and immoral in their worship of their gods.
2. They would have(and later on it did happen) led the Israelites astray
3. God had promised the Israelites that land which of course the present(at that time) inhabitants did not want to give up.
 

chuck010342

Active Member
well thank you true blood. You just basically saved me alot of time because you told my Theory. I was going to write it differently but you hit the nail right on the head with the main points. thanx
 
It is possible and likely that most Midianites were evil. But how does that give the Israelites the moral sanction to kill each and every Midianite some of whom might even be good?
 

linwood

Well-Known Member
Mister Emu said:
Well it was a mix of three things.
3. God had promised the Israelites that land which of course the present(at that time) inhabitants did not want to give up.

Ironic ...innocents are still dying in this very same battle today.
 

Quoth The Raven

Half Arsed Muse
Ronald said:
Twist and add words.
Jeter was a priest of Midian. Not the Leaders of Midian.
Jeter converted to Judaism and became Jethro and advised Moses.
The leaders of Midian conspired to wipe the Children of Israel from the face of the earth.
Moses was instructed by Hashem to harass them and take vengance for their plot against Hashems people.
Nowhere do you find words of rape and murder.
Finding fault in God is a fearful thing to attempt.

And yet God created man in His own image, and man is a creature full of faults. Would this not then make God faulty in the same respects?
 
Top