The bible is a terrible place to get your morals from

I'm glad to see my opponent decided to go after the killing of Numbers 31. I had a feeling that this would be fun. The first five books of the Bible are full of stories of the conquest of Canaan. One story that stands out in the mind of those who dispute God's perfect justice is Numbers 31. God seemingly gives no reason for the murder of thousands of defenseless woman and male children. Some go farther than that and try to say that these young girls are carried off to be raped. How could a perfect God do such a thing? I more than anyone hate the argument of context, but when discussing the Bible it becomes necessary. To understand the reason for Numbers 31 we must look back exactly six chapters before it; Numbers 25. This passage describes how the Midianite women led the Israelites astray into worshiping the Baal or Peor. The Lords anger burned against the Israelites and he struck them with a plague. Which ended when Phinehas killed an Israelite and the Midianite woman he had married. Marriage to the Midianites and the other people of the land of Cannan was strickly against the command of God. Because of these events god instructed the Israelites to "Vex the Midianites, and smite them; for they vex you with their wiles, wherewith they have beguiled you in this matter of Peor, and in the matter of Cozbi, the daughter of the prince of Midianite their sister, who was slain on the day of the plague in the matter of Peor"(Numbers 25:17-18) To allege that God is some sort of monster for ordering Israel to destroy the inhabitable of Canaan exhibits ignorance of biblical teaching. Those inhabitable were destroyed because of their own wickedness and sin not because God is an evil pathological monster. Complaining about God ordering the death of children is a vain gesture when one realises that they were spared the worse fate of being reared as saves under the domination of sin. Besides if the male children had been allowed to mature they would have followed their fathers in worshiping pagan gods and have eventually tried to enact vengeance on the Israelites. Killing them prevented Israel from battling them later. The allegation that the Israelite men spared the young girls in order to rape them is nothing but conjecture based on lack of Biblical knowledge. In the custom of the time marriages were conducted at a young age therefore the reference to young girls who had not "known man by lying with him" would indicate that they were very young likely under the age of twelve. These girls were too young to be able to lead the men of Israel away from God therefore, these girls were allowed to live. As to raping them, it is more logical to assume that they wanted these girls for servants. This would be similar to Joshua 9, where Joshua allowed the Gibeonites to live in compelled servitude to the Israelites. Moreover, it would have been sinful for the Israelite men to rape the Midianite girls because rape was (and still is) abhorrent to God (Deuteronomy 22:23-28, esp. 25). The simple answer to the questions surrounding Numbers 31 is that God ordered the Midianites to be killed in Numbers 25:17-18. When the army did not carry out this order at the time of the Midianite defeat, it was carried out in a delayed fashion when the army returned with the captives. As to Moses allowing the young girls to remain alive, that was a judgment call from the man with God"s authority over the Israelites. Alright moving on to Deuteronomy 20 10-14. My previous argument explains this adequately. Now moving on to the final object of your argument. Deuteronomy 22:28-29 Deuteronomy 22:28-29 is often pointed to by atheists, skeptics, and other Bible attackers as evidence that the Bible is backwards, cruel, and misogynist, and therefore, not the Word of God. At first glance, this passage seems to command that a rape victim must marry her rapist. Is that the correct interpretation of the text, and if so, how is that not horribly unfair to the woman? This issue is actually addressed in two passages, both of which are below: Deuteronomy 22:28-29 "If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days." Exodus 22:16-17 "If a man seduces a virgin who is not betrothed and lies with her, he shall give the bride price for her and make her his wife. If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money equal to the bride price for virgins." Together, these passages clearly state that if a man has sex with a virgin who is not betrothed (regardless of whether or not it was rape or consensual) he is obliged to marry her. He should have sought her father's permission first, negotiated a bride-price, and taken her as his wife. Because he did not, he is punished for this"he now must pay up (he can't opt out any more) and marry her (which could be a major punishment in itself if this was a foolish, spur-of-the-moment act and she really wasn't the right woman for him!). Also note that "he may not divorce her all his days" " this initially doesn't seem significant but is actually a major punishment. Deuteronomy 24:1-4 (restated more clearly in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9) allowed for divorce, but only in the case of sexual immorality. This man now may not divorce his wife even for this reason, but is obliged to continue to support her all his life whatever she does. But her father is ultimately in authority over her, as her head, until he hands this authority over to her husband. If the man is unsuitable, the father can refuse to give his daughter to him. How many fathers would give their daughter to a rapist? Not many. So, in general, a rapist would actually have to pay a 50 silver shekel fine to her father, and not get a wife at all. The answer to the question is in Exodus 22:17 - the woman does NOT have to marry a rapist, she must only do what her father says this is why the passage leaves marriage to the discretion of the father, because every situation is different, and it is better to be flexible than have a blanket rule. Also note that the penalty for having sex with an unbetrothed virgin is completely different from the penalty for sex with a married or betrothed woman. Sex with a married or betrothed woman is adultery and was to be punished by the death of both if consensual, or the death of only the man (not the woman as you claim) if it was rape. That was fun I look forward to your next try.