Thread: Purgatory: This is the thread where we talk about Old Testament genocide. Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=000415
Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 
It's come up a lot in the last month or so, and I have to say that it's one that I've grappled with a lot over the last few years. Before I became a Christian, it was a big obstacle to my faith; upon my conversion, I simply stopped thinking about it.

I came back to the question a few years ago.

Er, what question, Wood? I hear you ask.

This is it: in several places in the Old Testament (for example, Joshua, and 1 Samuel), God commands the Children of Israel to exterminate people groups. Women, children, animals, possessions. Wipe them off the Earth, He says.

The question that many of us ask is, why? If God is good, and genocide is (as practically any sane Westerner thinks in this day and age) a Very Bad Thing, what's going on? Was it right to exterminate those people? If it wasn't, does that mean that God was telling the Israelites to do evil? Or is the Bible simply wrong on the source of the impulse to exterminate entire nations?

Now I never bought the explanation that the Israelites were right to do it by our standards, that they were purifying the land and protecting themselves from contamination, and that the peoples whom the Israelites were commanded to destroy were unrepentantly evil to a man, woman and cat.

Nope. Don't like it. For one, what does it serve to kill babies? And what about the stuff? Why tear down all those houses, and then build new ones?

On the other hand, I'm unwilling to discount any part of Scripture as simply false (and by "false", I mean manifestly untrue and not of use, as opposed to parables, which while made-up, are in fact also true. If you see what I mean). I think that there are lessons to be found in the body of Scripture about who we are and where we came form, and to abandon it without seeing any value in it at all - not even figurative value - does a great disservice to the text.

So anyway, I thought about this a lot, and I had a couple insights. None of them solve the conundrum for me.

First, about the nature of war. In the 21st-century West, we can fight alongside someone and be their enemy twenty years later; likewise, we hold no grudges against the people of Germany and Japan. I have a German housemate. There are Iraqis living in this country - they haven't been interned or persecuted for that. This is because these days, war isn't personal. I mean, people get killed, but we don't identify the nations who are at war with the individuals fighting, and therefore we can talk to Germans, Japanese, and Argentinians (the Falklands? No, I was thinking about Diego Maradona's hand ball in 1986, actually) without trying to kill them.

In Bible days, when family and nation were closely linked and when the fortunes of a people were a personal matter, war carried on until one nation was beaten. Feuds carried on for generations.

Children would grow up to avenge their people - as indeed the Israelites themselves would (Judges).

To leave a child alive would be to leave alive a potential leader of the enemy, and a continuation of the war. It sounds horrible. That's because it is. But in the age of the Patriarchs, the only way to ensure peace was to end the war, and you ended the war by making sure that no one would ever fight again. There was no Geneva Convention, there were no Rules of Engagement as we know them.

And this makes a point about the changing nature of morality. I think it was something the Israelites had to do. But then they were Bronze Age nomads, living in a culture where most of our givens (the equality of man, the right to self-determination, the right to life) were unknown. What they did was right then.

Not now, but then.

Augustine's Confessions (3.7.13) makes the same point - apologies for the archaic translation , by the way. It was the first one I found:

quote:
Nor knew I that true inward righteousness which judgeth not according to custom, but out of the most rightful law of God Almighty, whereby the ways of places and times were disposed according to those times and places; itself meantime being the same always and every where, not one thing in one place, and another in another; according to which Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and Moses, and David, were righteous, and all those commended by the mouth of God; but were judged unrighteous by silly men, judging out of man's judgment, and measuring by their own petty habits, the moral habits of the whole human race.

As if in an armory, one ignorant of what were adapted to each part should cover his head with greaves, or seek to be shod with a helmet, and complain that they fitted not: or as if on a day when business is publicly stopped in the afternoon, one were angered at not being allowed to keep open shop, because he had been in the forenoon; or when in one house he observeth some servant take a thing in his hand, which the butler is not suffered to meddle with; or something permitted out of doors, which is forbidden in the dining-room; and should be angry, that in one house, and one family, the same thing is not allotted every where, and to all.

Even such are they who are fretted to hear something to have been lawful for righteous men formerly, which now is not; or that God, for certain temporal respects, commanded them one thing, and these another, obeying both the same righteousness: whereas they see, in one man, and one day, and one house, different things to be fit for different members, and a thing formerly lawful, after a certain time not so; in one corner permitted or commanded, but in another rightly forbidden and punished.

Is justice therefore various or mutable? No, but the times, over which it presides, flow not evenly, because they are times.

But men whose days are few upon the earth, for that by their senses they cannot harmonise the causes of things in former ages and other nations, which they had not experience of, with these which they have experience of, whereas in one and the same body, day, or family, they easily see what is fitting for each member, and season, part, and person; to the one they take exceptions, to the other they submit.
Now old Auggie was actually talking about Polygamy, but his point is interesting and partly apposite, I think.

Anyway, those are just my thoughts. I recognise that they're incomplete and that they have holes. I want to write more, but time is short, so I'll leave it there.

Please, add your own thoughts on this one.

[ 08. January 2006, 22:02: Message edited by: Erin ]
 
Posted by Esmeralda (# 582) on :
 
I've done some thinking about this lately, Wood, because I had to write Bible reading notes on Joshua about 18 months ago, and I'm a pacifist [Frown] I think your arguments are good ones, but they are necessitated by an evangelical view of Scripture which I no longer hold, if I ever did.
If one takes Joshua as both historical and in some sense still prescriptive for us, then we've got a big problem. However in my reading of commentaries I learned that Joshua may well have been written/compiled during the reforms of Josiah, much later than the supposed events it describes; and that its editorial principle was to justify Josiah's centralizing of worship and destruction of pagan shrines. I also learned that there is no real evidence the battles actually happened as described, or that the conquest was as complete as described.
This makes a lot of sense, but then we are still left, as I said in my intro to the notes, with the fact that this is what the Israelites would have liked to do to their neighbours. And that they invoke the name of God in their genocidal fantasies.
What one Mennonite scholar (Millard Lind in Yahweh is a Warrior ) points out is that the Israelites were specifically told not to have the state of the art weaponry, eg chariots, which their opponents had; and in some cases were even told not to fight, but just to let God win the victory. So one has a kind of 'proto-pacifism' in which it is stressed that the victory always goes to those God has chosen, even if their military might is much less - even, in fact,if they decide not to fight. This is one way of coping with these passages - but then of course one has God committing genocide, which may be even more problematic.
The point I'm personally at now is that these accounts are a tendentious human account of history, or rather the written version of an oral history, by a people who saw God at work in the way they had acquired a certain land and settled there. Perhaps God really was at work, but they could only understand God in terms of their own culture, which was one of inter-tribal war. As humankind progressed, so our understanding of God progressed - or if you want to put it in 'progressive revelation' terms, God was able to communicate the truth to us more fully, because we were more ready for it. The parallel is, perhaps, a parent (or teacher!) who teaches a child different things at different stages as the child becomes ready for them. I guess what Augustine was positing was a version of this.
As a Mennonite it is easy for me to believe in progressive revelation, since Mennonites refuse to read the OT independently of the NT, but read all of Scripture through the lens of Jesus. Not to do so, leads rapidly to legalism and 'folk religion'.
Surely Jesus in his 'It was said of old... but I say to you' statements is giving us a model of just such an approach.

[ 06. July 2004, 17:06: Message edited by: Esmeralda ]
 
Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on :
 
Hmmm. Well. There are various (modern) schools of theology that think God is evolving with us, as it were. He was kind of a nomadic based bratty kind of God (OT), and now he's a hippie, peace and love non-genocidal kind of God (NT), to obscenely oversimplify, of course. Not a bad theory, IMO.

Or.

The OT is in large part mythological/story (not in a bad way) and God is described through the Israelites view of things, view of the world. It contains great lessons, and great ideas. Some ideas worthy of emulation and some that are not.
 
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
I am 100% in agreement with Esmeralda on this one. In my tradition we interpret OT "enemies" as our own demons, (understood in the soft literary sense).
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Hmmm. Well. There are various (modern) schools of theology that think God is evolving with us, as it were.
There are indeed. But they have the disadvantage of being completely incompatible with God as revealed to us in the incarnation.
 
Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Hmmm. Well. There are various (modern) schools of theology that think God is evolving with us, as it were.
There are indeed. But they have the disadvantage of being completely incompatible with God as revealed to us in the incarnation.
There are indeed. And there are other schools that are completely at a disadvantage because their God appears to be completely evil.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
Augustine really was quite good at this sort of thing. And funny. There must be a more modern translation somewhere.


...as if someone put a helmet on their feet and complained that it didn't fit, or whinged about the shops shutting early shut on Early Closing Day...

[ 06. July 2004, 17:43: Message edited by: ken ]
 
Posted by spugmeistress (# 5795) on :
 
Maybe its not so much that God was evolving with us, but that he was always like he is, but due to our lack of evolution he had to adapt his message and plan to the lowest common denominator and do with us what he could. which also goes with the i used to say you could exact a fair and equal retribution rather than the unfair revenge and chaos you had before, but now you have grown up a bit i am asking you to forgive instead. his intentions were always towards the good, and he always did everything he could, but was limited by the understanding, evolution, resources, situation, technology etc. of his chosen people at the time. People do say the only limitation on Gods goodness is our own apathy?
I don't know I'm just thinking out loud here kinda... I always went with the 'protecting the line of Adam/Abraham/David so Jesus could be born' thing before.
luv, blessings & loud ringtones, rach =)
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
I wrote quite a bit about this on the "God Hardened Pharaoh's heart" thread.
 
Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :
 
Basically in agreement with esmeralda. Well put.

quote:
Mad Geo's OT option #2:
...The OT is in large part mythological/story (not in a bad way) and God is described through the Israelites view of things, view of the world. It contains great lessons, and great ideas. Some ideas worthy of emulation and some that are not.
A slight alteration of this: Not so much that some stories aren't "worthy of emulation" and simply to be discarded (as Mad Geo may or may not be saying, but it can be read that way), but that the different stories are instructive in different ways. If we identify a troubling story - say, God telling Israel to wipe out a certain group - we should let the story challenge us. As a later record of an oral history, a tradition in the making making sense of itself, how does this build on what came before it? How is it a motion toward the Gospel? Walter Brueggemann once cited MLK's famous quote that "the arc of history is bent toward justice" to describe the "arc of the gospel" as "bent toward inclusiveness" - it's an evolution through history. We can see that projectory already in the OT - but it's not always in the surface of the story. If we come upon a story that can't be reconciled with the Gospel, we can ask questions instead like, "Why did this instruction seem to come from God? Did it? How can I discern God's will in my life from my own sense of justice?" etc...
 
Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on :
 
What if when "we let the story challenge us" we do not come up with the same answers?

What if when we "let the story challenge us" we find that the answers X church or even the greater Christian community at large provides are unsatisfying or perhaps even trite?
 
Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
What if when "we let the story challenge us" we do not come up with the same answers?

What if when we "let the story challenge us" we find that the answers X church or even the greater Christian community at large provides are unsatisfying or perhaps even trite?
...and this is precisely why I started the thread.

And that's part of the reason why I don't buy (and have never bought) the solution Fr. Gregory reminds us of (although it has unimpeachable patristic credentials) - no matter how much of a positive allegorical meaning it's given, it's still a story about the destruction of people, even if we decide that's not what it's "about".

Likewise, while I take the point about the possibility of the stories being made-up at a later date, I still find it problematic, since they're still about genocide. Besides, some of the stuff done at those later dates was pretty appalling too. We're just transferring the atrocity and the presentation of it as "right" forward a few hubdred years.

Strangely, my argument has nothing to do with the stories' historicity or lack thereof - the substance of the stories remain unchanged.

I hate to pull out the most overused and abused NT scripture ever, but 2 Tim 3:16 does say that Scripture - however you see it, and I think that it's fair to assume that Paul thought of Joshua as Scripture - is useful for "teaching, correcting and training in righteousness". I believe that it is. I don't for a second think that Joshua has much use as an accurate historical source, but there's got to be a use for it.

I believe that there has to be a justification for these things. They have to have a lesson for us. To look at the deeds of the Israelites with 21st century Western eyes is to see a terrible crime. But if it was really such a terrible crime to them, how come it's not been a problem for Christians until recently?
 
Posted by Zeke (# 3271) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
What if when "we let the story challenge us" we do not come up with the same answers?
That's how theologians come up with dissertation topics. [Biased]
 
Posted by Esmeralda (# 582) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
I am 100% in agreement with Esmeralda on this one. In my tradition we interpret OT "enemies" as our own demons, (understood in the soft literary sense).
Much as it gratifies me to receive your 100% agreement, that isn't actually what I was saying! I don't wish to spiritualise or allegorise the genocide stories; I do think, as per 2 Tim 3.16, that they have something to say to us, but not just by translating the pagan nations into inner demons (I'm not at all sure, in any case, that massacring our inner demons is what we're meant to do with them!).
Probably part of what these stories have to say to us is that even when God chooses to use the world's methods, there is a difference/reservation: ie. the fact that Israel was not to have the latest military technology, viz. warhorses and chariots (read Trident and Star Wars?).
Another part is that we can't 'have our cake and eat it' as God's people: the Israelites could not maintain their difference and still live alongside, intermarry with and trade with the pagan dwellers in the land. I think we can draw this meaning out without spiritualizing; though it needs to be balanced with other Scriptures if we are to avoid separatism.
Maybe another theme is about origins: that it is important to tell the stories of our origins as God's people, even when they are embarrassing (although the writer/s of Joshua were clearly not embarrassed at all).
If these stories are to teach, reprove (you missed that one out Wood), correct and train us in righteousness, might they do it thus:
 
Posted by hermit (# 1803) on :
 
Hmmmm .... we seem to be assuming that a genocide specifically ordered by God would be a bad or evil thing. My understanding is that willful killing of a human is only evil when a person does it on his own. After all, God could intervene in our own lives and never let any of our bodies die, not even the many children who die now in much greater numbers every year than in any ancient massacre.

It's a purely human emotional need to focus more on a Big Event than the same thing happening every day in smaller numbers!

My own tradition is Catholic and of course St Augustine is part of that tradition ... but other commentaries are also, there's no mandatory interpretation of the OT that I know of, and most Catholic theologians tend to be allegorical and otherwise loose or liberal in their interpretations. But I like to be somewhat conservative myself, and at least try for a somewhat more literal interpretation when possible, since to do othewise would undermine Christ's affirmations of the Torah and Prophets (he didn't affirm all of our OT).

On reading the passage by St Augustine, honestly it doesn't seem all that far from my signature verses, which offer a very good principle to keep in mind when dealing with puzzling or horrifying OT passages(the Isaiah verses I've gone back to, my face will be red if the Pooh quote remains). Not very satisfying for the intellectually inquisitive though, and I might go into more detail on one of the specific genocides later.
 
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :
 
quote:


I believe that there has to be a justification for these things. They have to have a lesson for us. To look at the deeds of the Israelites with 21st century Western eyes is to see a terrible crime. But if it was really such a terrible crime to them, how come it's not been a problem for Christians until recently?
Hmmmm. I have a lot to say on this subject, and I'm not going to say it all. Neither (and apologies to sound parsimonious) am I going to put up with some of the vitriol that has been spat in my direction on other discussions about this. Just so you know!
The question about any OT passage ISTM is how is it fulfilled in Jesus?
The answer that many here seem to give - it isn't. Taking a conservative view of Scripture, I don't find that avenue open to me so what am I left with?
Well, it is certainly not fuliflled in Jesus' earthly ministry. In fact he specifically bans the disciples from violently forcing conversion on people, or seeing themselves as instruments of punishment.
Enter the "spiritual" meaning - its about God defeating our enemies/inner demons/sin etc. I think it is.
But it still leaves Wood's question - no matter how it applies - it still describes a mass slaughter! So what - mistake? Inaccuracy? God adapting his self revelation before humanity had "evolved" their post Victorian Fulham morality?
Well no. Because, look into the Gospels and you will find Jesus describe God's anger in terms of some of the OT passages. Look into the epistles and God's complete sovereignty over life and death is explained. Look into Revelation and you will find God sending his angels to pour hs wrath out on the earth.
Teach - God's holiness, and election of his people.
Rebuke - our pally "God is nice and he likes us all in a fluffy wuffy way" theology
Correct -our attempt to box him in to our own definitions of justice and love - which always have us and our rights at the centre
Train - us to take his anger at sin very seriously.
Interestingly, while I disagree with Esmerelda on a lot, our application is the same - "repent, or something worse will happen to you" (an application IMO, that only "works" if the events actually happened in the first place.)

Like I said, I know lots will disagree. Some violently. (Ironically) But please try to keep it polite. [Smile]
 
Posted by CommonMan (# 7584) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:


...look into the Gospels and you will find Jesus describe God's anger in terms of some of the OT passages. Look into the epistles and God's complete sovereignty over life and death is explained. Look into Revelation and you will find God sending his angels to pour hs wrath out on the earth.
Teach - God's holiness, and election of his people.
Rebuke - our pally "God is nice and he likes us all in a fluffy wuffy way" theology
Correct -our attempt to box him in to our own definitions of justice and love - which always have us and our rights at the centre
Train - us to take his anger at sin very seriously.
AMEN! [Overused]
 
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
I don't think God's revelation changes. I think scripture was inspired by the Holy Spirit and received by fallible human beings in the same way that fallible human beings experience God's inspiration today - i.e. imperfectly.

So it's not God's revelation that changes, but the human understanding of what God is revealing. In Jesus, I think all ideas of "A God who is faithful to me kills my enemies and commands me to kill my enemies" was very clearly laid to rest.

By the way, I have a friend who is a Conservative (as opposed to Orthodox) Jew who also does not believe that their God commanded Israel to kill people of other nations, so somehow that idea has seeped out of her form of Judaism too. But Christians, in my view, can be absolutely sure of this because everything Jesus said and did was utterly in opposition to that kind of tribalism.

If one believes that the bible is inerrant or close to inerrant, than "God changes" is the only way out of a changing understanding of the faithful. By understanding the bible as being inspired by the Holy Spirit and written by holy but fallible human beings who saw through the dark glass of their own humanity, then I don't have to think that God's revelation has changed. Only human understanding.
 
Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
What if when "we let the story challenge us" we do not come up with the same answers?

What if when we "let the story challenge us" we find that the answers X church or even the greater Christian community at large provides are unsatisfying or perhaps even trite?
We never come up with the same answers on anything else anyway, and the greater Christian community along with X church constantly feed us drivel. You run that risk with everything to do with scripture. Even the most obvious, the Decalogue, a simple, straightforward list of "don't"s, but we can't figure out to do with the Sabbath...

hermit brings up a good point - God's perspective is quite different than ours, and, God is in control of everything both in this life and beyond it. If anyone could say it was OK to kill someone/some group, it would have to be God, who holds that person/those persons through death into the next life. Maybe for whatever reason, in the OT stories, for certain groups of people to pass from this life into the next was a lesser evil than their remaining in this world. Hard to imagine, though. Including the fact that such a claim also means that it is better for the world to completely lose the memory of their cultural achievements, their language and art, and to lose the prospect of their future generations' genetic and cultural contributions to the world. That's pretty tough to claim, even biblically.
The fact that whoever told & wrote the story, at least, found it necessary to involve orders from God, is surely significant. At the very least, it meshes with the OT's insistence on interpreting everything through God's sovereignty.
 
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Rebuke - our pally "God is nice and he likes us all in a fluffy wuffy way" theology
This isn't hell, so I can't say what I really think about this absolute gross distortion and straw-man of a characterisation. [Mad] [Mad] [Mad]

Shall I characterise conservative theology is the religion of football hooliganism?

If we're going to have a serious discussion in Purgatory, then let's stop raising these strawmen or take your parodies to Hell instead. I know "fluffy liberals" who are trying to love people who abused them and they find their journey anything but fluffy and comfortable and feel-good [Mad] [Mad]

Errrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr [Projectile]

[ 06. July 2004, 20:33: Message edited by: Seeker963 ]
 
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Dear Esmeralda

I agreed with you then added my own bit. I didn't say or imply that it was your bit.

Dear Wood

Of course it's about divinely sanctioned genocide. Because that's unacceptable, the allegorical meaning is then a legitimate development. The allegory never pretends a different provenance.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
...no matter how much of a positive allegorical meaning it's given, it's still a story about the destruction of people, even if we decide that's not what it's "about".
So what is the problem with saying that God did not do these things, but that they are described the way they are for the reasons that Fr. Gregory gives? They have a meaning.
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
I believe that there has to be a justification for these things. They have to have a lesson for us. To look at the deeds of the Israelites with 21st century Western eyes is to see a terrible crime. But if it was really such a terrible crime to them, how come it's not been a problem for Christians until recently?
They haven't been a problem until recently for the same reason that people cheer when the bad guys get blown to tiny bits in movies. People just accepted that the Philistines were bad, got their just desserts, and that's the end of it.

But anyone who really thinks about it must know that all the Philistines, Egyptians, and Canaanites couldn't possibly have been bad. They were most likely exactly like the Israelites as far as their moral character was concerned.

The simple and eternal fact is that good creates and preserves, and that it is evil that destroys. God never destroys anything. Bible stories rely on the fact that this is not the way that things appear to happen. Why is it so difficult to understand how things really are?
 
Posted by Bill Misery (# 3256) on :
 
I'm very blase, heretical and non-biblical on this one. I think (i.e. subjective, perhaps non-rational, view) the Israelites liked wars (or were forced into them, or whatever excuse people have for killing other people) and thought God was telling them to fight them, when really he was probably on neither side because war isn't a very good thing and he was much more concerned with perfecting his people through obedience to the Law and communion with Him.

However, you have to do the whole "Bible is the Word of God but what does that mean exactly?" thing. That's what the issue is here, isn't it? (As always...)

As much as anyone tries to reconcile divine morality with human morality, there's always a huge difference because God is wholly Other.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
Originally posted by Leprechaun:

quote:
Teach - God's holiness, and election of his people.
Rebuke - our pally "God is nice and he likes us all in a fluffy wuffy way" theology
Correct -our attempt to box him in to our own definitions of justice and love - which always have us and our rights at the centre
Train - us to take his anger at sin very seriously.
Interestingly, while I disagree with Esmerelda on a lot, our application is the same - "repent, or something worse will happen to you" (an application IMO, that only "works" if the events actually happened in the first place.)
So, if the archeology of the Holy Land suggests that the invasion never happened we must all go off and become logical positivists?

Oddly enough, the facticity of the narratives aside I don't think that we are a million miles apart.

Assume for a moment that the Biblical critics are right and that this is an ancestor narrative rather than a work of history. Assume also that said critics are right in assuming that the Joshua narrative is an add on to the Pentateuch (some scholars talk of a Heptateuch). Assume also that the story was composed in the rich, powerful and religiously syncretic Babylonian Empire.

Now the great danger facing the Israelite exiles at this time is to chuck in their religion, or at least merge it with the dominant pantheon and theology. So God causes a narrative to emerge which tells his people that, actually, He is entirely other from foreign gods and that the only response to them is absolute opposition. Naturally, assuming scripture has a human component, this is joined to a certain amount of vicarious smacking people around in response to the conquest of Jerusalem. But the message is clear - God is not mocked.

Of course, in order to avoid a distorted theology you have to keep this in some kind of dynamic tension with the gospels and the NT...
 
Posted by IanB (# 38) on :
 
"...and you shall call his name Yeshua..." (Luke 1:31).

I'm sure you are right, Wood. With a name like Jesus, there is surely much that we need to understand from the difficulties we now find with the book of Joshua (et al of course).

Perhaps one of the biggest difficulties arises when we think of God as making sporadic interventions in the fate of the Jewish nation. But that view is more deism, and the Jews were theists, not deists. It always surprises me when discussions of Joshua overlook Joshua 5:13-15 -
Q: "Whose side are you on - ours or theirs?"
A: "Neither - I am here to command the army of the Lord"

What does that imply in a theistic context? Whatever else it might mean, surely it is saying that whatever this book is about, it isn't about taking sides.

Maybe another helpful view is the later Pauline strictures on what happens when people depart from doing things kata physin. This is often taken to be a sort of "argument from nature", but I don't think this is Paul's point at all. What he is surely talking about is human flourishing - and the duty of the chosen people was to be the beacon that showed how that could be done. The book of Joshua is the first collision of a people, now gathered under guidance for their flourishing, with those who were not flourishing at all.

Joshua is, I think, generally reckoned to be a somewhat bombastic over-statement of historic events. Fair enough. But later books, especially the prophets, are pretty explicit that the same "wrath of God" kicks in when it is the chosen ones who ignore the rules. Perhaps earlier ages had far less difficulty with the concept than we did because cause and effect were closer and more visible then. With our complex societal structures, insurances etc., we put ourselves at several removes further, so the cause and effect mechanism is more opaque to us.

If all the mayhem outlined in Joshua could be caused by a bunch of ill-trained bronze-age semi-nomads, with second-rate military hardware, maybe we should at least ponder what that means for us with our arsenals of mass destruction. This is not a plea for pacifism - just a strong warning for increased vigilance on our parts.

Ian
 
Posted by lapsed heathen (# 4403) on :
 
How about the Israelites were a tribe who kicked ass back in the day and when questioned about the atrocities they answered "God made us do it". Or how about they needed to muster support for what would be a tough fight so the slogan "God on our side" was dragged out (or first used) sort of OT manifest destiny.
What's this stuff doing in the Bible then? 'cos someone or some nation might need to justify 'stuff' again.
Or is this too cynical for you?.
 
Posted by hermit (# 1803) on :
 
I'm puzzled by several people here claiming that everything Jesus said and did was completely antithetical to the OT God. Nonsense. He's said in John 3:18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.

And what's the condemnation? Hell, which Jesus informed us is remarkably unpleasant, so painful that gouging your own eye or cutting off your hand would be a small price to pay for avoiding it. And several of his sayings imply that it's fairly easy to get there.

I don't like that any more than you guys do, but to say that there was nothing of OT Divine judgementalism or wrath in Jesus is just plain wrong. He didn't kill anyone during NT times .... but that might not be the case when he returns.

Now Callan mentioned the archaeological record .... it tends to support the OT in many ways, but it's far from complete. That's a field in which researchers have to jump to large inferences based on some very small pieces of evidence. From what I've read, there seems to have been some hyperbole in the biblical accounts, not total distortion or myth, but then again there seemed to be some of that in the sayings of Jesus also as recorded.
 
Posted by Little Weed (# 4402) on :
 
I was going to say something similar to lapsed heathen. History is written by the victors. If you won it must have been because God wanted you to go to war and win. Why can't it be as simple as that? Can you imagine Christ ever urging the chosen people to kill their enemies? Have we misunderstood his message so badly?
 
Posted by kiwigoldfish (# 5512) on :
 
Given that Kings records David's census as being at the inspiration of God, and Chronicles records it as being Satan's idea we do have a precedent in the Bible for quite radical differences of opinion on why certain things happened.

So that perhaps things understood as being divine commands were not. This seems to be the case as far as the census goes. It also seems to be the case looking over my life. At times I was certain that a course of action was God's idea, yet now I realise that I mucked up.
 
Posted by corpusdelicti (# 5124) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:

Teach - God's holiness, and election of his people.
Rebuke - our pally "God is nice and he likes us all in a fluffy wuffy way" theology
Correct -our attempt to box him in to our own definitions of justice and love - which always have us and our rights at the centre
Train - us to take his anger at sin very seriously.
Interesting, this seems very similar to what Father Gregory said earlier:

quote:
I am 100% in agreement with Esmeralda on this one. In my tradition we interpret OT "enemies" as our own demons, (understood in the soft literary sense).
We should interpret these sorts of passages as Gods anger against evil and sin, so we should "fight" against them in our modern lives.

This doesn't solve the problem though: it is only how we interpret these passages, it doesn't say whether or not they are historically true.

Did God really order such genocides? If he did could he still do so today? If that is case how can we say that the Jihadist aims of Al Qaeda are wrong?

If there came a time when God stopped ordering genocides, and would not do so now, when was that time? The incarnation?

To me the simplest answer is that God did not order such genocides. It is not surprising that Jews living in a polytheist world where Gods were frequently invoked in war believed that "God commanded it" or "God was on their side". People still believe that today.
 
Posted by spugmeistress (# 5795) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by hermit:
I don't like that any more than you guys do, but to say that there was nothing of OT Divine judgementalism or wrath in Jesus is just plain wrong. He didn't kill anyone during NT times .... but that might not be the case when he returns.
I agree, and yes it wasn't Jesus per se, but Acts does attribute the sudden/gruesome deaths of Ananias, Sapphira and Herod to divine homicide. Not quite on the scales of genocide, but on the other hand, why did *they* deserve it specifically and not the people around them? I have my own views on that, but I think it goes to show there still seems to be a bit of the judgement and wrath in there yet.

luv, blessings & kickass lightning storms, rach =)
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kiwigoldfish:
So that perhaps things understood as being divine commands were not. This seems to be the case as far as the census goes. It also seems to be the case looking over my life. At times I was certain that a course of action was God's idea, yet now I realise that I mucked up.
Great example. That's right. God did not inspire the census, nor does He inspire our own bad ideas that we mistake for "His calling."
 
Posted by Custard123 (# 5402) on :
 
only just found this thread.

I agree with Wood....
I guess I always assumed the thing about kids coming back to get people. Maybe it would have made things clearer if I'd said it. Also, where a child is growing up in a society characterised by total rejection of God, they are going to reject him too.

and Lep......
Nice application, but I think you missed out
Praise: that God is just and powerful to save

and spuggie......
it is absolutely true that any progression in understanding of God through the Bible is a development in his people as God reveals more about himself as his people change (e.g. Gal 3:24).
And remember that the Bible passages with the highest body count are in the NT.

and probably hermit to an extent as well.

For someone as contrary as me, that's quite impressive!

I've already said plenty on this on other threads, so will stop for the time being.
 
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:

If we're going to have a serious discussion in Purgatory, then let's stop raising these strawmen or take your parodies to Hell instead. I know "fluffy liberals" who are trying to love people who abused them and they find their journey anything but fluffy and comfortable and feel-good
er...methinks he doth protest...I wasn't actually making any reference to liberal theology in that comment, but some of the worst excesses of emotionalistic evangelicalism. I would only fire comments like that into my own stable believe me!

So sorry about offending you. But it really wasn't aimed in your direction.
 
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by hermit:
I'm puzzled by several people here claiming that everything Jesus said and did was completely antithetical to the OT God. Nonsense. He's said in John 3:18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.

And what's the condemnation? Hell, which Jesus informed us is remarkably unpleasant, so painful that gouging your own eye or cutting off your hand would be a small price to pay for avoiding it. And several of his sayings imply that it's fairly easy to get there.
Can someone please explain to me how we've got from genocide to hell?

The original poster said he was disturbed about the Old Testament passages that seemed to give the impression that God condoned, and even recommended, genocide and now people are talking about hell. I think there is a lot of confusion going on here.
 
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:

If we're going to have a serious discussion in Purgatory, then let's stop raising these strawmen or take your parodies to Hell instead. I know "fluffy liberals" who are trying to love people who abused them and they find their journey anything but fluffy and comfortable and feel-good
er...methinks he doth protest...I wasn't actually making any reference to liberal theology in that comment, but some of the worst excesses of emotionalistic evangelicalism. I would only fire comments like that into my own stable believe me!

So sorry about offending you. But it really wasn't aimed in your direction.
I'm a "she", please (not that you'd know that from my moniker).

I accept what you say above, but....context.

I didn't see anyone talking about a "soft and fluffy God" until you brought the subject up - making a huge leap in logic there. We were talking about genocide.
 
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Little Weed:
I was going to say something similar to lapsed heathen. History is written by the victors. If you won it must have been because God wanted you to go to war and win. Why can't it be as simple as that? Can you imagine Christ ever urging the chosen people to kill their enemies? Have we misunderstood his message so badly?
Short and to the point. Amen! [Overused]
 
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:

I accept what you say above, but....context.

I didn't see anyone talking about a "soft and fluffy God" until you brought the subject up - making a huge leap in logic there. We were talking about genocide.
Yes. I was reacting to a discussion I had recently had IRL recently. Sorry.
When I said "our" - I really meant "our" - as in my own constituency of Christians. Apologies again.
 
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Little Weed:
Can you imagine Christ ever urging the chosen people to kill their enemies? Have we misunderstood his message so badly?
I'd really appreciate an answer on this one from the conservative evangelical team.
 
Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 
Not really on any team, unfortunately.

The one thing I want to emphasise, which I really missed, allowing that wonderfully opaque passage of Augustine to do it for me, is that we believe that God never changes, and yet He allowed - and commanded - the Israelites to do something which no sane 21st century Western Christian could countenance.

Could Christ command people to kill their enemies? Well, it depends. In a world where this was an acceptable thing to do and where it was the only way to ensure peace..? Maybe, yeah.

The genius of Jesus was that, through His divine nature, He showed us that we had to reinterpret our moralities for each age in which we live.

He recognised that the rules for a nomadic society were almost as ill-fitting for first-century occupied Judaea as they are for today; He played fast and loose with the rules, while at the same time stating that He came not to change or alter a single thing. In His Sermon on the Mount, He stresses repeatedly that we can learn from these things, and that we can use them, even if they don't fit our world, since we their purpose is for us to live at peace, first with God, and then with our fellow human beings.

Jesus' example is that we have to rewrite the particulars of our faith for every age in which we live (which we do, which is why we don't accept slavery but are allowed to have mortgages these days, for example) , while still keeping to the central truths. It isn't even about bringing it down to the Ten Commandments; it's about taking the whole lot, and seeing what it's for. Which is harder than taking a set of hard rules and shoehorning them into every age of the world.

God doesn't change. But the world does. God therefore applies different moralities to the same intention: harmony. Which is what Augustine was about in that passage I quoted in the OP, believe it or not.

[ 07. July 2004, 09:36: Message edited by: Wood ]
 
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
quote:
Originally posted by Little Weed:
Can you imagine Christ ever urging the chosen people to kill their enemies? Have we misunderstood his message so badly?
I'd really appreciate an answer on this one from the conservative evangelical team.
No. But then he makes it clear in, for example, the letters to the churches in Revelation, and various passages in John that he himself will inflict something much worse on the unrepentant. I think I've said before in one of the discussions about this, that this is clearly with our NT glasses on, not a model for the church today, simply because Jesus says it isn't.

But with the Joshua/Jesus connection, it does seem to be a model of Jesus' actions in the future. Hard as that may be to stomach.

We're not in a "team" by the way. I prefer the description "conservative evangelical Reich". [Biased]
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
Spugmeistress, you wrote:
quote:
I agree, and yes it wasn't Jesus per se, but Acts does attribute the sudden/gruesome deaths of Ananias, Sapphira and Herod to divine homicide. Not quite on the scales of genocide, but on the other hand, why did *they* deserve it specifically and not the people around them? I have my own views on that, but I think it goes to show there still seems to be a bit of the judgement and wrath in there yet.
As far as Annanias and Sapphira are concerned, I'm not actually sure that this is so. Acts passes no comment about the rightness or wrongness of Peter's actions, beyond saying that they resulted in "great fear" being visited upon the community. It is certainly possible, and indeed, it is the traditional explanation, that Peter executed God's righteous judgement on A&S for their hypocrisy. But that is not what Acts says, it is an interpretation. An, equally possible, interpretation, is that the story shows the terrible consequences of the abuse of spiritual power, in this case by Peter. Certainly, Peter, as so often in scripture, does not come out of it well. We know he was, by nature, impulsive, and filled with zeal. Effectively, he cursed Annanias. It's understandable, in a way, he was (correctly) angry, but that does not necessarily make his actions right in God's eyes. And what were all those other believers doing whilst they waited for Sapphira to return, whistling Dixie? Why was the house not in mourning, why was Annanias buried before his wife had even seen his body. It is Peter's flawed judgement, his abuse of genuine spiritual power, that is higlighted by these events.
 
Posted by Esmeralda (# 582) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by hermit:
I'm puzzled by several people here claiming that everything Jesus said and did was completely antithetical to the OT God.
I don't think anyone's said that - just that Jesus' teaching was a progression from OT teaching, and that books such as Joshua might need to be re-evaluated in the light of this.

quote:
.. to say that there was nothing of OT Divine judgementalism or wrath in Jesus is just plain wrong. He didn't kill anyone during NT times .... but that might not be the case when he returns.
I disagree strongly with this 'he let you off first time but boy is he going to kick ass when he comes back' interpretation. Jesus is not the Terminator saying 'I'll be back'! Acts 1 says Jesus will return 'in the same way' or, in some translations, 'this same Jesus'. There is much in the OT about destroying evil, but little or nothing about Jesus coming back to condemn where formerly he overlooked. In fact he himself said 'my words will be the judge', not himself. Also, 'judge' does not necessarily mean 'find guilty'. I would be worried about a human judge who used the word with that meaning..

Wood, I also disagree with your contention that 'God never changes'. The OT is full of examples of God changing his mind (viz Nineveh after the preaching of Joshua, for example), and prophecies which say things like 'I have repented of the evil I was going to visit on you'. The
character of God may not change, but God's intentions and methods certainly can. Read The Openness of God (Clark Pinnock et. al.). There is masses of biblical evidence for this viewpoint.
 
Posted by GeordieDownSouth (# 4100) on :
 
This is a timely thread for me as well, and coming from a very similar position to Wood as regarding status of scripture etc and could almost have repeated the start of his OP as my own dilemma.

Its timely as I've just had a brief trip to the balkans and have been reading about what happened during the civil war in Bosnia. Then I came home and have been working through the book of Joshua.

I struggle with the "progressive revelation" bit as it doesn't seem to borne out. I don't believe we're better equipped morally to move from "kill your enemies" to "love your enemies." Genocide of the kind discribed in Joshua is still happening. Serbs, Croats and Muslims in Bosnia indulged in the same kid of destruction. Women, children, houses....

The behaviour of the Isrealites in Joshua therefore seems entirely realistic, archeological evidence or not.

(Also the Serbs & Croats are Orthodox and Catholic Christian respecitevely and I'm left feeling more disturbed)

I have no conclusions. I have a thought that if God did want to wipe out whichever ethnic group that I belong to, that is entirely up to him. But that doesn't seem to provide me with any answers.

I don't believe that this is an acedemic argument. In england I'm safe from this kind of behaviour. Many parts of the world are not. I'll be following this thread with interest, and in light of some of the comments going back to Joshua and reading a bit closer.

There seems to be something key and very relevant in this part of the old testament about how we could approach current genocides, but I can't quite unlock it.

I'll repeat again. This is not an acedemic argument about biblical literacy/authority. Its also an argument about what is still happening now.
 
Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Esmeralda:
Wood, I also disagree with your contention that 'God never changes'. The OT is full of examples of God changing his mind (viz Nineveh after the preaching of Joshua, for example), and prophecies which say things like 'I have repented of the evil I was going to visit on you'. The
character of God may not change, but God's intentions and methods certainly can.
Sorry - yes, when I said that God never changes, I mean that God's nature and moral character do not change (as opposed to His decisions - although I think Pinnock's thesis isn't watertight). Which I think is what you're saying.

[ 07. July 2004, 09:54: Message edited by: Wood ]
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IanB:
Joshua is, I think, generally reckoned to be a somewhat bombastic over-statement of historic events. Fair enough.
That's pretty explicit in the Bible. It's not even subtext, its text. All these apparent victories, all this land doled out to various tribes and families - yet there they are, living alongsiide the Cananites (& Amorites & Hivites & Jebusites & Perizzites & thisites & thatites & other ites) who they had supposedly wiped out in the previous pages. And there are all their war leaders ("Judges") and later some of their the prophets going on about how they didn't rid of all those various ites.

And the geneaologies are revealing too. Taking them literally there is not the slightest evidence that Caleb and a significant portion of the tribe of Judah ever went near Egypt - the Israelites seem to have picked them up in the desert. (Possibly my favourite set of ites - the Kenites)

Another thing about the ites - some of them are Allowed and some of them are Not Allowed - some can be Israelites if they want, others can be lived alongside, others are supposed to be shunned, and some (very few) are supposed to be done in entirely.

Also they all have symbolic significance as well. That applies also to the big empires and so on you've heard of. Often quite a complex symbolic significance - Egypt is consistently a place of refuge, of safety, but it is also decadent and unspiritual, so symbolically it can be "good" or "bad" in different contexts. And so on.
 
Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :
 
quote:
But then he makes it clear in, for example, the letters to the churches in Revelation, and various passages in John that he himself will inflict something much worse on the unrepentant.
In John?

Anyway, I don't believe that there's any parallel between genocide in the OT and Hell. I don't see a single reference to ultimate punishment in the NT that isn't comprehensible in terms of a broken relationship with God. I don't think that genocide in the OT has anything to do with that.

The fates of the nations in the classical prophets from Amos on are certainly theologized in the context of Israel's election - but it seems clear to me that the major theme there is that Israel's election isn't irreversible, and that she can become as one of the nations, cast adrift on the currents of eighth century BC geopolitics. And it gets even more subtle with Jeremiah.

It seems to me that the genocidal passages in Joshua (and much more theologically distressingly in the Saul-narrative) take their rise directly out of the culture of the times, and that on the landscape of the OT they are basically an erratic boulder, left there by colossal processes which no longer shape the theologicl landscape. Put it another way: if your model of God's people is that they are the material on which God's revelation is impressed, then the image of that revelation is bound to be profoundly implicated in the nature of the image you have. If Jesus had been born into the culture of twelfth-century BC Palestine, in which mass-murder of conquered populations was part of the "shit which happens" (though I think we underestimate the horror with which it was regarded even then) - and moreover into a Yahweh-theology which was certainly henotheistic rather than monotheistic - we would never have known that God is love.

Why, when Scripture itself is so clear that the Christ came at the appropriate time, do we have to incorporate clapped-out, genocidal models of God into our thinking just because they're in the Bible? My point is the exact opposite of a position that says that we can safely ignore bits of the Bible. It's that we have to understand Scripture for what it is, and not foist preconceived notions of equal theological value onto it, when Scripture itself clearly doesn't work in this way, and, basically, isn't that. If you take the whole Bible with equal seriousness, you aren't actually treating any of it with the seriousness it deserves.

And moreover, you're missing the point - the Girardian point - that this hideous and repulsive violence is in us all, and that God, in order to love us, has to deal with it. Hence the Cross. The forces that crucified Christ are the forces that wrought genocide in the OT. And still do in the world today. We can't ignore these narratives. God help us if we do. The truth of them is the truth of our fallen human nature. And our hearing the voice of God in the comand to kill is something that we can only begin to get a grasp of theologically when we realize that we've successfully killed God for the same reasons.
 
Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
And moreover, you're missing the point - the Girardian point - that this hideous and repulsive violence is in us all, and that God, in order to love us, has to deal with it. Hence the Cross. The forces that crucified Christ are the forces that wrought genocide in the OT. And still do in the world today. We can't ignore these narratives. God help us if we do. The truth of them is the truth of our fallen human nature. And our hearing the voice of God in the comand to kill is something that we can only begin to get a grasp of theologically when we realize that we've successfully killed God for the same reasons.
I think this is kind of what I was trying to reach towards, but didn't quite make it. I find this a fairly satisfying insight. Thank you.
 
Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :
 
quote:
colossal processes which no longer shape the theologicl landscape.
I was writing fast, (that's why my posts tend to be longer than they should [Hot and Hormonal] ) and can see the obvious apparent contradiction with what I went on to say:
quote:
The forces that crucified Christ are the forces that wrought genocide in the OT. And still do in the world today.
I do believe that the cultural significance of what we are calling 'genocide' (sc. in Joshua and Samuel) was lost by the mid-eighth century when Amos began to preach. In a sense, I'm not really happy that we're calling these things - hideous though they were - 'genocides'. They aren't the same as what happened in Nazi Germany (though arguably they have a closer kinship with what happened in the Balkans in the 90s and still lurks there) - though (and this is the constant) they are all culturally-conditioned manifestations of something that is true of us as human beings. Cultural and epochal contexts are crucial to the way these things show themselves, though. It's always worth remembering that it was because the Incarnation happened when it did that we have the Cross as the symbol of our faith.

I'd also like to make it clear that the "You" in the last paragraph is a rhetorical "you", not an attempt specifically to engage with Leprechaun personally. Maybe I'll cross-post with him on this, and if so I apologize if I seem to impute anything to him that he's not saying.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
Originally posted by Leprechaun:

quote:
No. But then he makes it clear in, for example, the letters to the churches in Revelation, and various passages in John that he himself will inflict something much worse on the unrepentant. I think I've said before in one of the discussions about this, that this is clearly with our NT glasses on, not a model for the church today, simply because Jesus says it isn't.

But with the Joshua/Jesus connection, it does seem to be a model of Jesus' actions in the future. Hard as that may be to stomach.
Except there is a difference between judgement and indiscriminate slaughter. The NT model is of God as a judge, judging people for their actions. Descriptions of those who will not inherit the Kingdom of God tend to be descriptions of wickedness. Revelations 21:8 is a good example.

Those massacred in the OT narratives tend to be of a different race, or if that is putting it too contentiously, a different nation or group. Those killed are not only the ones accused of unspecified wickedness but those who had no power in their societies and were, therefore, their victims - women, slaves, children and even livestock (IIRC)! Even if you take a hellfire and brimstone interpretation of the NT, there is still a world of difference between "there is the death penalty with no exceptions for these crimes" and "kill them all, God will know his own".

quote:
We're not in a "team" by the way. I prefer the description "conservative evangelical Reich". [Biased]
You may regret that comment in a few months time when a thread on PSA is described as degenerating into an argument between the Plot and the Reich. [Biased]
 
Posted by Billfrid (# 7279) on :
 
How do we know that the god who commanded the murder of non-Israelites in the OT is the same God of the NT?
(Sorry if this has been flogged to death elsewhere, but I was brought up Roman, am now (recently) Anglican, and am very ignorant of the OT and its exegesis.)
Is it ridiculous to think that a god who ordered mass murder could later be the Father whom Jesus spoke of?
(And is it heretical to believe that they are two different beings?)
 
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Except there is a difference between judgement and indiscriminate slaughter. The NT model is of God as a judge, judging people for their actions. Descriptions of those who will not inherit the Kingdom of God tend to be descriptions of wickedness. Revelations 21:8 is a good example.

Indeed. There would be such a difference. But there is a basic issue here of what we think we deserve generally - and whether in fact, being allowed to to live in itself is God's grace to his creation, and the ending of life is what we all intriniscally deserve - an act of judgement.
On the racial thing - the Nt is quite clear that race is no longer a paradigm for the people of God, and as I have said several times violence is not the way the kingdom grows in this present age. Nevertheless acts of violent judgement do seem to be something that will re occur some day in the future.
Psyduck, as always your post was slightly intellectually over my head, and I am (shock) actually quite busy at work today, so I will think about it and maybe post more later.
 
Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :
 
Billfrid:
quote:
Is it ridiculous to think that a god who ordered mass murder could later be the Father whom Jesus spoke of?
(And is it heretical to believe that they are two different beings?)
Yes.

And just saying "Yes!" is the hard bit!


Hi and welcome, by the way. Good question. Takes us back to the heart of the thread.
 
Posted by Billfrid (# 7279) on :
 
Thanks Psyduck [Axe murder]
 
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
We're not in a "team" by the way.
Of course we are. It's like a football team, this Church thing.

You're playing on the right wing. [Biased]
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Billfrid:
Is it ridiculous to think that a god who ordered mass murder could later be the Father whom Jesus spoke of?
No, not ridiculous, though untrue.


quote:

(And is it heretical to believe that they are two different beings?)
Yes.

A heresy, and a common one in the early church.

Why stop at two? Some Gnostics set up whole heirarchies of alternative gods creating each other.
 
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :
 
Ken, that was more then a little unkind.

It is a question people have struggled with for almost 2,000 years. That early Christians settled it once does not resolve the issue for everybody. First, exactly how many people have eve heard of Marcion and the Gnostics? Second, any question someone has about their faith is one that can be treated with respect. It took me a great deal of study and thought to reconcile the actions of God in the Hebrew Bible with those of the God of the New Testament. That study and thought brought me to a new, and better, appreciation of God.

It is a question we all address at one time or another. Simply labeling it heresy is not constructive.
 
Posted by Little Weed (# 4402) on :
 
Wood, I've re-read the passage from St Augustine and it still reads to me like a very clever ex post facto rationalisation. To a certain extent so does the whole argument about God considering things as righteous depending on the time and the place, even if it involves God ordering ethnic cleansing or genocide. To an extent I can understand the idea of making the best of a bad job in the culture of the time but surely it doesn’t turn evil into good.

I also read Joshua last night. God seems so human. I want these men stand here, and those men to stand over there and now you can pick up your spear but don’t do anything until I say so. Why? <stamps feet> Because I don’t want them to live there I want you to live there.

If I assume that everything in Joshua is an accurate account of what God said (as opposed to Joshua’s best understanding of what God wanted) there’s no regret on the part of God. No sense that this is less than the perfect way to handle the circumstances. No lesson that this is a one-off. They have to go on defending the land and if that means more killing, so be it. So how is it that a mere three thousand years later God incarnate comes along saying, “You have heard it said… but I say unto you.” What’s changed? There are now invaders in the land God gave to the Israelites. Isn’t this a prime case for some violent action? (Of course what I would say has changed is not God or what a pragmatic God wants in particular circumstances but man’s understanding of God, first seen in the later parts of the OT and then with the arrival of God in person.)

What scares me most about this is the resonance it has with the arguments of Islamic fundamentalists. They argue that Islam is essentially peaceful but that there are some nations who are so evil and depraved that God wants to wipe them off the face of the earth. How do you argue against that if you hold that God did exactly the same thing not that long ago and what’s more Jesus will do even worse when he returns?
 
Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Little Weed:
Wood, I've re-read the passage from St Augustine and it still reads to me like a very clever ex post facto rationalisation.
That's because it is very clever ex post facto rationalisation.
quote:
To a certain extent so does the whole argument about God considering things as righteous depending on the time and the place, even if it involves God ordering ethnic cleansing or genocide. To an extent I can understand the idea of making the best of a bad job in the culture of the time but surely it doesn’t turn evil into good.
And this is where my argument has holes. Was it evil? Was it good? I don't know, and I'm uncomfortable with it.

Hey! God! Is it so very bad for me to want my faith to make some sort of coherent sense?

quote:
I also read Joshua last night. God seems so human. I want these men stand here, and those men to stand over there and now you can pick up your spear but don’t do anything until I say so. Why? <stamps feet> Because I don’t want them to live there I want you to live there.

If I assume that everything in Joshua is an accurate account of what God said (as opposed to Joshua’s best understanding of what God wanted) there’s no regret on the part of God. No sense that this is less than the perfect way to handle the circumstances. No lesson that this is a one-off. They have to go on defending the land and if that means more killing, so be it. So how is it that a mere three thousand years later God incarnate comes along saying, “You have heard it said… but I say unto you.” What’s changed? There are now invaders in the land God gave to the Israelites. Isn’t this a prime case for some violent action? (Of course what I would say has changed is not God or what a pragmatic God wants in particular circumstances but man’s understanding of God, first seen in the later parts of the OT and then with the arrival of God in person.)

What scares me most about this is the resonance it has with the arguments of Islamic fundamentalists. They argue that Islam is essentially peaceful but that there are some nations who are so evil and depraved that God wants to wipe them off the face of the earth. How do you argue against that if you hold that God did exactly the same thing not that long ago and what’s more Jesus will do even worse when he returns?
It's this which makes me find the whole thing deeply depressing.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
Ken, that was more then a little unkind.

[..] Second, any question someone has about their faith is one that can be treated with respect.
Of course - that's why (unlike Psyduck) I said it wasn't a ridiculous question.

quote:

Simply labeling it heresy is not constructive.
Why not, seeing as its true?

Calling something a heresy isn't an insult.
 
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Little Weed:
How do you argue against that if you hold that God did exactly the same thing not that long ago and what’s more Jesus will do even worse when he returns?
I have answered this already; because Jesus tells us not to.
 
Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :
 
Ken:
quote:
Of course - that's why (unlike Psyduck) I said it wasn't a ridiculous question.
Er... do keep up! I didn't say it was a ridiculous question. The question was
quote:
Is it ridiculous to think that a god who ordered mass murder could later be the Father whom Jesus spoke of?
And I said that it was an excellent question. And it is, because of its heuristic value. Look at the way it promises to open up the debate! [Biased]
 
Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :
 
Leprechaun:
quote:
I have answered this already; because Jesus tells us not to.
I see. And would this be the same Jesus who says:
quote:
The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat; 3 therefore, do whatever they teach you and follow it; but do not do as they do, for they do not practice what they teach.
You can't possibly not want to expand a bit on your answer, can you? Genocide is OK for God in the OT, and Jesus at the Last Judgement, but not for us because Jesus tells us?

Come to think of it - genocide is OK for Jesus at the Last Judgment? [Eek!] [Eek!] [Eek!]

It reminds me of something so strongly... I have tried, but I can't forbear to quote Monty Python:

quote:
"He's not the Messiah! He's a naughty, naughty boy!"
Surely you can't be saying that things are OK for God just because he says so, and for Jesus because he's God, but are not OK for us just because Jesus says so? Can you?
 
Posted by Billfrid (# 7279) on :
 
I'm a heretic! [Eek!] [Hot and Hormonal] [Waterworks]
As I said, I don't really know enough about the theological and historical issues so if I'm heretical it's through ignorance rather than malice. So please don't tell the Inquisition. [Big Grin]

I still would like to know why the god of Israel in the OT is known to be the same God of the NT.
Who decided this?

Without being facetious - if it is the same God, is there any chance that God might order us to kill Muslims or Hindus next week?

What I'm trying to ask here is what changed God from a promoter of mass murder to a God of love?
 
Posted by Custard123 (# 5402) on :
 
The conquest under Joshua was God's judgement on the sins of the Canaanites (Ge 15:16, etc)

I think the idea is that those who are God's own would respond by co-operating with the Israelites (as e.g. Rahab did). The cattle, etc are killed either as a kind of firstfruits offering to God or because of their corruption by association with their owners.
 
Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :
 
Custard123
quote:
The conquest under Joshua was God's judgement on the sins of the Canaanites (Ge 15:16, etc)

I think the idea is that those who are God's own would respond by co-operating with the Israelites (as e.g. Rahab did). The cattle, etc are killed either as a kind of firstfruits offering to God or because of their corruption by association with their owners.
And you're happy with this? You have no problems with this as a normative ethic for us today? If God says it's OK it's OK?

How do we know when God says that mass murder is OK? Or is it only mass murder in the Bible that's OK? Or if somehow we were to be convinced that God was saying that it was OK, would it be OK for us to participate in mass murder? And even wrong for us - like Saul - not to?

Put it another way:

Could anyone who has ever professed to follow Jesus Christ seriously envision their own participation in mass murder?

Which leads to Billfrid's rather excellent question:
quote:
what changed God from a promoter of mass murder to a God of love?
Or has the change not taken place, and we who believe that God is a God of love are actually deluded?
 
Posted by Custard123 (# 5402) on :
 
The situation has changed. God's people are no longer primarily a nation, surrounded by hostile foreigners. Instead we are aliens and strangers, scattered throughout the world.

It is now clear that our inheritance is not an earthly one.

God has now revealed everything we need to serve him.

So no, mass murder is not right now because God has not told us to (and in fact the possibility of him telling us to has also been removed since he has finished the content of his self-revelation until the end).

But God does have the right to do what he wants with us. And if that means using people as the agents of his judgement (as with the death penalty for certain crimes - another dead horse), then that means using people as the agents of his judgement.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
Which leads to Billfrid's rather excellent question:
quote:
what changed God from a promoter of mass murder to a God of love?
Or has the change not taken place, and we who believe that God is a God of love are actually deluded?
Maybe it's the other way around. Maybe God has always been Love, but before Jesus we weren't hearing His commands properly.

Imagine this scenario. God tells the Israelites to go and live with the Cananites, but they think He's telling them to go and destroy them and live on their land. An easy enough mistake to make in those days - to them, if God wants them to live over there He must want them to remove the current tenants first, right?

It's like a cosmic game of chinese whispers. God says "go and make friends of the Cananites, and live in their land", they hear "go and make an end of the Cananites, and live on their land".

Eventually God gets so sick of being misunderstood that He sends Jesus to set us straight, and afterwards the Holy Spirit to keep the communication channels as open and accurate as possible.

God hasn't changed. Our perception of Him, and ideas of what He wants, have.

Or is that a load of rubbish?
 
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
Surely you can't be saying that things are OK for God just because he says so, and for Jesus because he's God, but are not OK for us just because Jesus says so? Can you?
Yes. More or less.

Surely you can't be saying that God is only allowed to do things he allows us to do? That leaves a bit of a problem with both creating and winding up the universe doesn't it?
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
There is no commandment "Thou shalt not create a space-time continuum" as far as I know.
 
Posted by Faithful Sheepdog (# 2305) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by GeordieDownSouth:
I don't believe that this is an acedemic argument. In england I'm safe from this kind of behaviour. Many parts of the world are not. I'll be following this thread with interest, and in light of some of the comments going back to Joshua and reading a bit closer.
If you're not already familar with Scottish history, I can recommend reading about the Highland clearances in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. The impact of the clearances on the Highland culture and economy was enormous.

Some died directly, but many more died indirectly through privation, starvation and disease. Other Celtic parts of the UK (Wales, Ireland) can also tell similar stories. [Frown]

So the UK has certainly seen its very own version of ethnic cleansing - and not so long ago, either. Psyduck's point is very valid - the capability for genocide is within all of us.

Neil
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
Could anyone who has ever professed to follow Jesus Christ seriously envision their own participation in mass murder?
Many have. Within the last ten years Christian ministers - including both Roman and Anglican priests - took part in genocidal murder in Rwanda and Burundi, on both sides. And Serbian Orthodox priests have at least supported, if not actually enacted, the murder of Muslims and Catholics. There are other recent examples.
 
Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :
 
Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Maybe it's the other way around. Maybe God has always been Love, but before Jesus we weren't hearing His commands properly.
Well, that's certainly the way I've always seen it.
 
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Surely you can't be saying that God is only allowed to do things he allows us to do? That leaves a bit of a problem with both creating and winding up the universe doesn't it?
No. I'm not capable of creating universes, nor winding them up. That question is one of power, not of morality.

The question here, is whether genocide is ever moral. The Reich [Biased] are arguing that whatever God does is moral - the opposition agree. The inerrantists argue that God ordered genocide, therefore when God does it, it's moral. The opposition deny that he ordered it, because it's immoral.

It looks to me as though to maintain the belief that God ordered genocide, you must believe one of these...
a) they all deserved to be murdered, in which case this genocide is moral
b) God likes genocide
c) genocide was ordered in a few specific instances in order to bring about a change that would benefit the whole world - the end justifying the means, perhaps in some way that's incomprehensible to us.

I've seen the inerrantist team arguing a), dodging b) but not really going for c), which I find strange. It's not an indefensible position in light of the fact that much evil happens in the world, in accordance with God's will in a sense since he permits it, but if you played that card I'd have to argue that although he redeems evil, I don't believe he ever orders it.
 
Posted by Custard123 (# 5402) on :
 
As an inerrantist, I agree with a) and c), but not b. God says he doesn't like genocide and that judgement is his "strange work" and "alien task", but it is still one he does.
 
Posted by Belle (# 4792) on :
 
I find it really hard to believe that God uses people as agents of judgement. This is the God who died for us while we were yet sinners. Can the same God who is about this saving work also be striking people down in their sins? (Quite apart from the fact that many extremely evil people appear to remain unrepentently unsmitten - never mind how many of their underlings might be casually swatted aside).

If we have to take up arms against others in this day and age, let it be at least as a last resort and when all other remedies have failed. Let us do it with tears and sorrow that better measures have not prevailed, not with the belief that we are doing God's work by striking them down. Surely that way lies madness?

I believe all war is failure. Sometimes it may be the only option (or do we simply believe that because unlike Jesus we are unwilling to go meekly to our deaths) but it can never, never be a good option.

My own feeling is that the stories related in the bible, whatever their historicity, reflect the through the dark glassly perceptions of those who related them. Against all expectations, Jesus was not a warrior messiah - and he spoke of personal spiritual battles, not of the physical battlefield. Shouldn't that be something that speaks to us?
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
There is no commandment "Thou shalt not create a space-time continuum" as far as I know.
It's in the Book of his Works, not the Book of his Words [Biased]
 
Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :
 
Custard 123:
quote:
...judgement is his "strange work" and "alien task", but it is still one he does.
Presumably, then, because for some reason he has no alternative. That is, he is constrained, not free. But surely your position is (forgive me if I misrepresent you, it's certainly the position of others who argue much as you do) that God, in order to be God, has to be sovereignly free and unconstrained. Surely, then, he has alternatives here? In which case, must you not argue that God chooses the course of action that he takes? (Whereas the Orthodox, for example, would argue, I think, that God is constrained by his granting of freedom to his creatures so that their love can be real love. That's something I'd also want to argue.)

But there are places in the OT where God clearly doesn't set about the ordering of genocide as a sad, starnge work.

How, for instance, in the story of Saul's being condemned for refusing to commit genocide, was God's purpose thwarted, except that a people he had ordered exterminated weren't?
 
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
No. I'm not capable of creating universes, nor winding them up. That question is one of power, not of morality.
Actually, grasping at God's role is a moral issue, which is why some Christians do have issues with stem cell research etc.

The point being that God, being who is, is still good in applying a moral order to his creatures that does not apply to him. Who can deny that God, at best, allows death every day when he could stop it, when it would be (IMO) immoral for a person to do the same?

Underlying this whole discussion, IMNSHO, is a failure to understand or to accept that our relationship to God is creator-creature, not a relationship of equals, where the same rules apply.
 
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Underlying this whole discussion, IMNSHO, is a failure to understand or to accept that our relationship to God is creator-creature, not a relationship of equals, where the same rules apply.
Well, there may be some of that going on. But specifically we're discussing whether God would order us to do something immoral, not whether it would be immoral for him to take away as he gives.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Belle:
I find it really hard to believe that God uses people as agents of judgement.
Steady on old chap! That's going a bit far!

What was all that about forgiving sins, and binding in heaven?
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
[edited for copyright violations -- for the love of Christ, WHY?!?]

[ 28. March 2006, 02:18: Message edited by: Erin ]
 
Posted by Custard123 (# 5402) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
Presumably, then, because for some reason he has no alternative. That is, he is constrained, not free. But surely your position is (forgive me if I misrepresent you, it's certainly the position of others who argue much as you do) that God, in order to be God, has to be sovereignly free and unconstrained.
God, in and of himself is free and unconstrained.

However, that also means that he is free to impose constraints on himself (only acting consistently with his character, etc).

So God freely chooses to be consistently just and consistently loving (although we do not see either realised fully in this life). That free choice of God's then constrains his actions - for example it means that in choosing to be consistently just and consistently loving, God was also freely choosing to send Jesus to die for us.

Yes, it is plausible that God is also constrained by his free decision to allow his creatures freedom. But I wouldn't like to argue that position either way.

quote:

But there are places in the OT where God clearly doesn't set about the ordering of genocide as a sad, strange work.

How, for instance, in the story of Saul's being condemned for refusing to commit genocide, was God's purpose thwarted, except that a people he had ordered exterminated weren't?
Judgement, I think, is not something that comes easily to God. That's part of the reason he is so patient with us (and was with Saul). I imagine the problem was with Saul's motivation for refusing to obey God.

God's purpose is never thwarted!
 
Posted by Billfrid (# 7279) on :
 
Originally posted by Psyduck
"Maybe it's the other way around. Maybe God has always been Love, but before Jesus we weren't hearing His commands properly."
-------------------------------------------------
I would love to think so.
That's definitely the best-case-secenario for biblical genocide.
Like Wood, I have great difficulty with the OT god of the Israelites. It's easy to say that the Canaanites etc. were being punished for their sins. But their little children were hardly capable of sin. And unlike Nazi Germany and Rwanda, where people were quite clearly following their own evil will, in the bible the Israelites were acting on their God's direct orders.
So who is he, and, as a Christian why should I have anything to do with him?
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:

How, for instance, in the story of Saul's being condemned for refusing to commit genocide, was God's purpose thwarted, except that a people he had ordered exterminated weren't?
Weren't the Amalekites exterminated after by Samuel after Saul demurred?

Yours in Christ

Matt
 
Posted by Belle (# 4792) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Belle:
I find it really hard to believe that God uses people as agents of judgement.
quote:
Originally posted by Ken.
Steady on old chap! That's going a bit far!

What was all that about forgiving sins, and binding in heaven?
Not much in the instructions about genocide at that point though!
 
Posted by corpusdelicti (# 5124) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
[edited for copyright violations TWO FREAKING YEARS LATER]
Interesting choice of quote. As far as I can see this passage opposes genocide.

Why prevent intermarriage if there is no-one to intermarry with? Why order the specific destruction of altars if all is to be destroyed?

The only possible genocide command is to "destroy them totally", but this might not be genocide, the text implies that they will be driven out and no longer allowed to worship their gods or practice their culture, which seems fairly destructive in itself.

This passage implies that the Jews were not to compromise with other peoples, but were to remain pure when they came to Canaan, not that they were to slaughter everything in their path.

So the Jews misinterpreted God when they started killing women and children. God never ordered a genocide at all... didn't I say that earlier?

[ 28. March 2006, 02:19: Message edited by: Erin ]
 
Posted by ONUnicorn (# 7331) on :
 
*WARNING* The following is slightly oversimplified, and repeats some of what has already been said, moreover; it is just one person's learned opinion.

Imagine you are God. Go all the way back to the beginning. You are alone. Existence is rather boring, there is nothing around but you. So you make stuff. You make the universe. You make heaven, and the angels, but you make the angels adore you and they are sort of boring because you know they only adore you because that’s the way you made them. You decide to do something different, to make something that can love you because it wants to. So you make the most beautiful thing you can imagine. You fill it with plants, and animals, and every good thing you can imagine. Then you make one animal that is smarter and more complex then the others. You give them all the choice to love you or not, but there is no reason for them not to since you have given them all this good stuff. The one special animal you make a king, to rule over and care for the rest of this corner of your creation. It is lonely, so you make another one to work and rule alongside it. Then, you instruct one of your angels to work against you, to show them that they have a choice, to love you or not; because love is only truly fulfilling if it is freely given. They choose (as you knew they would) to try to become you. They see the power you have, and want to be like you, rather then to adore you.

As time passes, there gets to be more and more of them. Most of them could care less about you, but there are always a couple who at least want to know more about you, to know if you are something they could love. You decide to destroy everything you have created except for those few who want to love you. At first, that works, but as they reproduce some (of course) choose not to love you. Despite the fact that they don’t want you they do want a God and they make their own. This just sickens you. Not only do they reject you, but carve these things with no power or ability, and give them the love you so crave. Once again you think about destroying them, but you don’t want to break your promise to the ones who once truly loved you, even though they are now long dead.

Then there is this guy. An average guy really. Pays lip service to the gods of wood and stone, but basically ignores them. You think if he knew you existed, maybe he could love you. Maybe if he loved you, that love would spread from him to others like a disease. So you choose him. He loves you. You show him that your power is real, not like the stone and wood gods. He loves you more. His descendants love you. You save them from starvation, by selling them into slavery. When it is time for them to return home, you save them from slavery with power and might. Then, they betray you. They don’t trust you. They pay you lip service, but still rely on their own power. They are still trying to be like you. So you punish them. You don’t take them home right away. You force them to learn to trust you. Then you take them home, but wait! You are the God of slaves, not the God of this new land. This new land is very different from the land you took them from. If you let them settle here along side these people, they will ask the people how to farm this new land. These people worship gods of stone and wood. When they plant their crops, the sacrifice to gods of stone and wood. They have sexual orgies as part of their fertility rites, sex to make the crops grow. Your people will not be able to separate the necessary steps for planting crops from the worship of these gods of stone and wood. You cannot let these people corrupt your people. It will happen if these people remain. If, on the other hand, your people are successful here without the help of those who lived here before, it will show the world that you are God, and more people will come to them to learn of you and they will love you too. So how do you stop your people from learning from these other people and their gods of stone and wood? Once again, show your power by killing them. Do not let your people leave any of them alive to corrupt them. Kill them all. Do not let them take their gold and spoils, for the gold is in the shape of their gods. Do not let your people live in their houses, for then people will think you are not able to provide for your people, they can only take what belongs to others. Do not let your people eat their crops, raise their livestock, for those crops and livestock is all the fruit of other gods. You are able to provide for those who love you, and the only way to prove that to an unbelieving world is to do it.

But they don’t kill them all. They don’t obey you. They leave some alive and, like you knew it would, it corrupts them. They no longer love you, they worship the gods of stone and wood they were supposed to destroy.

You punish them. You let the people who lived there before come back and subject them to slavery. They come back to you, the god of slavery, and you free them again. They turn back to the gods of stone and wood, you sell them into slavery, they return to you, you free them.... on and on for the length of the Old Testament.

Then they are enslaved to the Romans, and you decide this one group of people showing the world thing isn’t working. The time is right for you to free them from slavery again. This time you do it differently. You come, as one of them. You learn a lot from this, and you teach them even more then you learn. Before, you wanted them to prove their love to you by sacrificing things they could eat (food is life, after all). Now, you prove your love for them by sacrificing your life. You give up on your chosen people, spreading your love like a disease, and openly and blatantly say “to all that will come to me I will give eternal life.” You say, Love me, and I will take care of you.

You no longer have a need for genocide. Before, you needed genocide to stop them from turning away. Now you have done something so awesome that even if they turn away, others will come to you. Before, they loved you when it suited them. Now those that love you love you in truth. Those that choose not to love you have always met their fate, and will continue to do so.

Does that make sense???
 
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
Not really on any team, unfortunately.

The one thing I want to emphasise, which I really missed, allowing that wonderfully opaque passage of Augustine to do it for me, is that we believe that God never changes, and yet He allowed - and commanded - the Israelites to do something which no sane 21st century Western Christian could countenance.
I don't think God commanded it. I think the tradition recorded in scripture justified Israel's action by deceiving themselves that God commanded it. I think the history of Israel should be read as the history of Israel and not as an instruction book for human behaviour for all time.

Now, did God allow it? Sure. Well, I'm a Methodist and believe in free will. God also allowed Hitler and Pol Pot and Ceausescu. God allows humanity to make lots of disasterous mistakes.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Maybe it's the other way around. Maybe God has always been Love, but before Jesus we weren't hearing His commands properly.
Well, that's certainly the way I've always seen it.
One of the things that comes into play here is the purpose of the Incarnation.

My understanding of the Incarnation is that God came to earth in bodily form so that we could hear His commands properly. Before that took place we couldn't hear them properly, and were becoming more and more wicked - relying on an ancient order that could no longer function as it had in ancient times.

The Old Testament was therefore written in a very dark time of the human race, when cruelty and violence were rampant. The question was how to bring something good out of that and prepare the world for the Advent.

The answer was to raise up a symbolically holy nation that would receive, preserve and obey laws that stood for what the incarnation would accomplish. The entire history of Israel is a metaphor, acting out the struggle and salvation that the Christ would accomplish.

But none of this erases the plain fact that this was an evil time in history, and barbaric things were happening. The Old Testament was written despite those barbaric things, putting a symbolically good face on events that were actually evil.

God never ordered genocide. He is love itself and mercy itself. The genocide that took place was evil, inspired by hell itself. It nevertheless was possible for it to be a metaphor for something good - namely the destruction of evil and hatred.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
The order for genocide is a special circumstance based upon the inheritance God was giving the Israelites. Kind of like the mountain of the Lord experience. If anyone touches the mountain - man, woman, child, animal - they are to be put to death because God is holy. In the same way, the land was to be "purified" for the Israelites. Eg:Deuteronomy 20:10-20


Also consider:
Genesis 15:12-16
Seems that on the level of national sin the people were deserving of God's judgement. All the citizenry (man, woman, child) are held accountable by God.

Finally, consider that none deserve the mercy of God and God has no moral obligation to provide mercy or grace to any people. We all deserve death. It humbles me to consider God extended both mercy and grace to me in Jesus Christ.

So, that being said, only God can order genocide. We are certainly in no position to cast the first stone since.

Yours in Christ

Matt
 
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ONUnicorn:


Does that make sense???
I was thoroughly confused by OnUnicorn and Psyduck having the same avatar!

I don't agree with all you say, but I think its the best stab so far to actually take the text at face value AND give proper place to the incarnation.

Thanks!
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
Pull the pin and ...

As I said on a recent Kerygmania thread, 'We seem to have a classic example of the failure of liberal rationalism in this thread. The failure even to posit, as David suggests, that God is as good as we ALL hope and is ACCURATELY represented throughout the Bible.'

It's all about squaring that circle, folks, which neither liberals nor Calvinist fundies can do.

The former don't have intellectual credibility despite all of the intellectuals who espouse liberalism and the latter ignore grace.

[ 07. July 2004, 17:59: Message edited by: Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard ]
 
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
I'm sure this has been savaged to death before and fairly recently. Anybody got the link? Don't mind me ... (I know, "we won't!").
 
Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :
 
Matt Black:
quote:
Finally, consider that none deserve the mercy of God and God has no moral obligation to provide mercy or grace to any people. We all deserve death. It humbles me to consider God extended both mercy and grace to me in Jesus Christ.

So, that being said, only God can order genocide.
I'm sorry - I really can't believe that you are at ease saying this. I don't see the difference between this statement and the statement that fundamentally the only thing wrong with the Holocaust was that God didn't order it, and that if God had ordered it it would have been in general principle morally unexceptionable. I really don't want to believe that you think this, and I would be really grateful - and I'm not putting any sort of spin on this - if you could tell me how I am wrong in my take on what you're saying.
 
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
It is a question people have struggled with for almost 2,000 years. That early Christians settled it once does not resolve the issue for everybody.
How many times must we re-invent that wheel, Tortuf? Seventy times seven?

quote:
First, exactly how many people have eve heard of Marcion and the Gnostics?
Didn't they have a hit back in 1958? They play them on the Oldies station all the time.
 
Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :
 
MT:
quote:
Didn't they have a hit back in 1958? They play them on the Oldies station all the time.
You're thinking of Bultmann and the Existentialists. [Yipee]
 
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
You're thinking of Bultmann and the Existentialists. [Yipee]
No no, that was a 1976 hit by Elton John.

"Hey kids, shake it lose together...."
 
Posted by ONUnicorn (# 7331) on :
 
Originally posted by leprechaun:
quote:
I was thoroughly confused by OnUnicorn and Psyduck having the same avatar!
Unfortunately, there are a limited selection of avatars.

Tragically... NONE of them are unicorns!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [Disappointed] [Frown] [Waterworks]

[ 07. July 2004, 20:04: Message edited by: ONUnicorn ]
 
Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :
 
...or Psyducks...
 
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
What exactly is a psyduck?
 
Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :
 
Behold Psyduck.
 
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
I like it....

quote:
While lulling its enemies with its vacant look, this wily Pokémon use psychokinetic powers.
I am always a little leary of people who know words like "psychokinetic" but can't conjugate simple verbs like "use". [Paranoid]
 
Posted by ONUnicorn (# 7331) on :
 
Oh, come on...

nobdy crs bout stff like verbs 'n nouns n stuff no more.

(Just look at a nice professional website like CNN.com and count the grammatical errors... its scary how far into professional writing the neglect of grammar has gone... especially the misuse of the apostrophe and the wrong form of "their".)

[ 07. July 2004, 20:47: Message edited by: ONUnicorn ]
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
but can't conjugate simple verbs like "use". [Paranoid]
Or spell words like "leery."

I'm pretty sure this is why God smote so many people in the Old Testament. [Disappointed] [Ultra confused] [Disappointed] [Biased]
 
Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :
 
I'm getting a headache...
 
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Or spell words like "leery."
My dictionary says both spellings are acceptable.

[ 07. July 2004, 21:14: Message edited by: Mousethief ]
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
[Killing me] [Killing me] [Killing me]

OK. No smiting then. [Cool] [Angel] [Cool]
 
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Whew.
 
Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :
 
C'mon guys, let's get our act together - or a host will come along and we'll be a Heaven thread on genocide... [Ultra confused]
 
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Can we just pretend this page never happened?
 
Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :
 
Why? It's a work of art!
 
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
I don't see the difference between this statement and the statement that fundamentally the only thing wrong with the Holocaust was that God didn't order it, and that if God had ordered it it would have been in general principle morally unexceptionable.
The evil of the Holocaust was one person or group of people taking it upon themselves to decide that another group of people should no longer be allowed to live. They had no right to do this. In essence it was Adam and Eve's sin gone mad - wanting to be like God, by the destruction of others.
"If God had ordered it" is I am afraid, not a category I can think in.
Nevertheless, I make my point I made earlier - God does, at the very least allow, if not cause, the deaths of millions every day. Even as the world is! I do not believe that makes him evil, although for a person to do so would be.
To me, it seems, again as I have said before, the discussion hinges around the view or lack of view of God's "otherness" from us.
 
Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :
 
We apologise for the break in transmission, and return you to your scheduled programme...

Leprechaun:
quote:
"If God had ordered it" is I am afraid, not a category I can think in.
But isn't that precisely what it means to say that the genocides of the OT were God's will? He wanted them done, said so, and his instructions were carried out?
 
Posted by Custard123 (# 5402) on :
 
There is of course also the question of when God, being the same God who has revealed himself to us in Jesus Christ, would order genocide.

I hope we can agree that if Jesus is as recorded in the Bible, that he believed in the truth of the stories in Joshua enough to be more than willing to sing all the Psalms about it.

But we also know that God is gracious and compassionate, slow to anger and abounding in love and faithfulness. So for him to order genocide (which is perfectly within his rights) would take a pretty extreme situation.

SO I guess the answer to your question is that if God had directly ordered the Holocaust, the situation beforehand would have been so completely different that it would of necessity have been a very different event.
 
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :
 
quote:
Can we just pretend this page never happened?
Yes please. [Big Grin] [Razz]

Tortuf,
Purgatory Host
 
Posted by corpusdelicti (# 5124) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:

Nevertheless, I make my point I made earlier - God does, at the very least allow, if not cause, the deaths of millions every day. Even as the world is! I do not believe that makes him evil, although for a person to do so would be.
But "allowing" death is a million miles away from actually ordering genocide. This is just a ludicrous category error.

Does not the commandment say "thou shalt not murder"? It doesn't say murder is OK if I say so.

Can anyone give a biblical reference where God unequivocally demands genocide? I remain to be convinced that such an order ever existed.
 
Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :
 
Custard 123
quote:
So for him to order genocide (which is perfectly within his rights) would take a pretty extreme situation.
How can it be within anyone's "rights" to do something which is utterly immoral? The real - and appalling - problem for me is that the assumption that underlies so much of the opposition is that genocide isn't intrinsically immoral, it's just contingently wrong because God arbitrarily tells us not to do it. Once again, we find a God whose only attribute is sovereign power.

My position is that God, revealed in Jesus Christ couldn't possibly order or sanction genocide, and the bits of the OT that seem to record that he does are in fact records of wrong time-conditioned beliefs about God. And furthermore, the disposition to entertain these bits of the OT as somehow binding on us as Christians is a symptom of a deeply faulty theology of revelation.

What have we come to, when we can sustain a debate as to whether genocide is OK or not? But this is purgatory, so debate on...
 
Posted by hermit (# 1803) on :
 
Oh, I hate it when this happens. I go away for half a day and you've all grown into this monstrous thread .... the worst part is knowing I have to read all of it and compose a post which will be forgotten in a few days. Well, let me try to get a few bits and pieces done.
quote:
Can someone please explain to me how we've got from genocide to hell?The original poster said he was disturbed about the Old Testament passages that seemed to give the impression that God condoned, and even recommended, genocide and now people are talking about hell. I think there is a lot of confusion going on here.
The idea is not just that there was genocide, but that genocide is always horrible and no God associated with gentle Jesus could ever order it done. My point in bringing up Christ's words on hell, was that he was talking about God (presumably himself) doing something far worse than a genocide, and that was to send people to a place he implied was endless torment. After all, the pain of being killed in a genocide can only last so long. So I see the gentleness, meekness and compassion of Jesus as part of his person ... not all of it, the harsher aspects deferred until the second coming .... in addition to the words about hell there was the whipping of moneylenders, the cursing of the fig tree, and the command to purchase swords later on. Ominous.
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Little Weed:
Can you imagine Christ ever urging the chosen people to kill their enemies? Have we misunderstood his message so badly?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'd really appreciate an answer on this one from the conservative evangelical team.
Well, the following conservative writer seemed to imagine just that: Revelation 12:11 I saw heaven standing open and there before me was a white horse, whose rider is called Faithful and True. With justice he judges and makes war. 12His eyes are like blazing fire, and on his head are many crowns. He has a name written on him that no one knows but he himself. 13He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God. 14The armies of heaven were following him, riding on white horses and dressed in fine linen, white and clean. 15Out of his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations. "He will rule them with an iron scepter."
quote:
An, equally possible, interpretation, is that the story shows the terrible consequences of the abuse of spiritual power, in this case by Peter.
The passage seems to me to imply the Holy Spirit did the killing, as He was "tested". It says nothing about Peter cursing them, though he prophesied for Sapphira. And God killed them for something almost as trivial as stumbling while carrying the Ark of the Covenant. Human lives may not be as big a deal from God's viewpoint as from ours.
quote:
I disagree strongly with this 'he let you off first time but boy is he going to kick ass when he comes back' interpretation. Jesus is not the Terminator saying 'I'll be back'! Acts 1 says Jesus will return 'in the same way' or, in some translations, 'this same Jesus'.
Maybe I got the idea from Revelation.
quote:
And our hearing the voice of God in the comand to kill is something that we can only begin to get a grasp of theologically when we realize that we've successfully killed God for the same reasons.
YOU've killed God now? I thought it was Nietzsche who did that. At any rate for a killed Creator He seems to keep showing up among believers ... at least Psyduck and company have easier names to spell than the German guy.
quote:
Those massacred in the OT narratives tend to be of a different race, or if that is putting it too contentiously, a different nation or group. Those killed are not only the ones accused of unspecified wickedness but those who had no power in their societies and were, therefore, their victims - women, slaves, children and even livestock (IIRC)!
I believe the Amalekites were also Semites, and had been plaguing the Isrealites for centuries .... and were accused by God of several specified sins, Callan.
quote:
How do we know that the god who commanded the murder of non-Israelites in the OT is the same God of the NT?
Jesus affirmed the Torah ("the Law") and Prophets, which is part of our current OT.
quote:
What scares me most about this is the resonance it has with the arguments of Islamic fundamentalists. They argue that Islam is essentially peaceful but that there are some nations who are so evil and depraved that God wants to wipe them off the face of the earth. How do you argue against that if you hold that God did exactly the same thing not that long ago and what’s more Jesus will do even worse when he returns?
If you think you're going to convince fundamentalists with mere arguments .... lol.

It doesn't matter what the Koran says because it isn't true, wasn't spoken by God. If when I'd read it I had judged it to be the true word of God, I'd be smiting off the hands and heads of infidels even now as we speak, just as it commands. Follow the commands of God rather than worrying about how it might seem to this or that ethnicity or religious cult.

quote:
Hey! God! Is it so very bad for me to want my faith to make some sort of coherent sense?
I often wish for the same thing, and pray for it too, but it has become more important that it be true than that it makes sense. I've believed other religions in the past that made more sense but weren't true.
quote:
Surely you can't be saying that things are OK for God just because he says so, and for Jesus because he's God, but are not OK for us just because Jesus says so? Can you?
Surely you can't believe that a parent could scold a two year old child for playing with matches, and then turn around and play with those same matches? That seems rather hypocritical.

Haven't even made a dent in the threads, but I'm about done for now. Literally .... can't wait for the flames to start.
 
Posted by spugmeistress (# 5795) on :
 
jolly jape -
quote:
It is Peter's flawed judgement, his abuse of genuine spiritual power, that is higlighted by these events.
so you're saying that god allowed power coming from him (cos you say it was a result of genuine spiritual power) to kill two people as a result of a flawed human decision that he didnt really agree with? or are you saying peter killed them and then blamed it on god?

billfrid -
quote:
I still would like to know why the god of Israel in the OT is known to be the same God of the NT.
Who decided this?

Without being facetious - if it is the same God, is there any chance that God might order us to kill Muslims or Hindus next week?
I'm guessing Jesus did, he seemed to associate himself quite strongly with the OT prophecies and the characteristics of God taught in the OT scriptures, even going as far as quoting him in the I AM thing, claiming to be him, and yet still referring to his Father. If it *is* the same God though, there could be a chance he could do anything and whatever he liked. Although we would always have to question the source as we haven't had any revelations of biblical authority recently, and alot of people dont even seem to agree over what authority the revelation of the bible holds. Would it fit with his character in the context of our situation and how it may be similar or different to the context of God seemingly agreeing with it in Joshua and the context of Jesus being against it in Matthew? What were Gods motives in each case and do they still apply. From what I've already said way back on page one I'd say his motive for the events of Joshua doesn't apply any more, and since Jesus didnt even tell anyone to kill the Romans who were oppressing the nation of Israel, we wouldn't have much excuse to kill anyone either. So i don't think God could've ordered the Holocaust given the context and still be within his character. Whereas I've rationalised it enough to believe the OT ones were [Biased]

As for God being allowed to do things which we aren't allowed to do, Romans 12 tells us to not to exact revenge on people because it should be left up to God's wrath to dispense justice. Similarly as the anti-euthanasia/captital punishment argument goes, we are too flawed to decide when people should die, and shouldnt take another life in any way shape or form, but God is infinitely wise, plus he made us and decided we were all going to die sooner or later because of the fall, so he effectively is allowed to decide when someone dies? But then again, thats just what I think, some people might say that God doesnt decide when people die, sin and humanness and disease makes people die (which I would disagree with, but ppl are allowed their opinion) but that attitude would influence the whole argument either way.

Are things immoral because we decide them to be, or because we think God is morally perfect and what he does/says (in context of course) is moral? And then I spose there's all the questioning of whether God did do or say that actually, which is what this thread is mostly about. But I just wanted to throw the first question in.

luv, blessings & pikachu! rach =)
 
Posted by Little Weed (# 4402) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
The point being that God, being who is, is still good in applying a moral order to his creatures that does not apply to him. Who can deny that God, at best, allows death every day when he could stop it, when it would be (IMO) immoral for a person to do the same?
Well I can deny it. Death is an inherent part of the way the universe is created. The flower had to die to produce the fruit on the tree in the garden. If God intervened directly with the natural order to stop everyone and everything dying we wouldn’t have creation as it is. We’d have a God who had a toy earth moving toy people and animals around. Unnecessary death and suffering are on our conscience, not God's.
 
Posted by Custard123 (# 5402) on :
 
Psyduck:

Are you saying that God is constrained by definitions of right and wrong created by his creatures?

Yes, you can say all that stuff about God's self-revelation being coherent with our understanding. But the fact of the matter is that the book of Joshua is part of the Scriptures which point to Christ, and Christ certainly seemed to believe them as historical.

To my mind, there are two key facts here

1) Because of the way I reject God, I deserve whatever nasty forms of judgement he sees fit to send on me. So did the Amorites, etc.

2) God as love does not preclude him from also being God as light, in whose presence we cannot stand except by the blood of Jesus.

Is it possible, from your point of view that God is love, not in the sense that uncritically accepts everyone but in the sense that offers to accept everyone, even a wretched sinner like me, despite what they are like, but that still leaves room for "Holy, Holy, Holy" and for "Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished"? Is that idea of God possible to you?

[I'm aware I am slightly misrepresenting you here, but it doesn't affect the sense of what I am asking.]
 
Posted by ChristinaMarie (# 1013) on :
 
Maybe the 'genocide' passages are an aetiological explanation for why Israel and Judah were taken into captivity, tracing their idol worship to the failure of carrying out God's commands to kill everyone.

Christina
 
Posted by Little Weed (# 4402) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by hermit:
Originally posted by Little Weed:
Can you imagine Christ ever urging the chosen people to kill their enemies? Have we misunderstood his message so badly?
quote:
Well, the following conservative writer seemed to imagine just that: Revelation 12:11 I saw heaven standing open and there before me was a white horse, whose rider is called Faithful and True. With justice he judges and makes war. 12His eyes are like blazing fire, and on his head are many crowns. He has a name written on him that no one knows but he himself. 13He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God. 14The armies of heaven were following him, riding on white horses and dressed in fine linen, white and clean. 15Out of his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations. "He will rule them with an iron scepter."
So did St Paul get it wrong in 1 Corinthians 13? Love doesn’t triumph at the end of the film?

quote:
What scares me most about this is the resonance it has with the arguments of Islamic fundamentalists. They argue that Islam is essentially peaceful but that there are some nations who are so evil and depraved that God wants to wipe them off the face of the earth. How do you argue against that if you hold that God did exactly the same thing not that long ago and what’s more Jesus will do even worse when he returns?
quote:
If you think you're going to convince fundamentalists with mere arguments .... lol.
"By their fruits ye shall know them" and all that.

quote:
It doesn't matter what the Koran says because it isn't true, wasn't spoken by God. If when I'd read it I had judged it to be the true word of God, I'd be smiting off the hands and heads of infidels even now as we speak, just as it commands. Follow the commands of God rather than worrying about how it might seem to this or that ethnicity or religious cult.
So our God could tell people to kill the infidels, then he came to earth and told them not to, but he’ll come again and say killing’s back on as long as I do it. This bit is true. Have I got this right? But the other one true God of the Book tells Muslims to kill infidels but that’s wrong because it’s not true? Why not? According to you it is in God’s nature (God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit) to commit genocide from time to time. I fail to see the distinction.
 
Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :
 
spugmeistress:
quote:
Are things immoral because we decide them to be, or because we think God is morally perfect and what he does/says (in context of course) is moral?
If you're talking about a Christian moral understanding, I think you'd have to understand morality in terms of God's morally-perfect nature as revealed in Jesus Christ. But in Jesus Christ, as also in Scripture, God's nature is finally revealed as love. Why do we have such problems understanding God's revelation in Jesus Christ as reinterpreting, modifying, and in important respects superseding what was revealed over twelve hundred and fifty years to Israel? Especially when that itself is a Scriptural perspective?

Why are we afraid to be horrified by genocide? Why are we so scared to say straightforwardly that the (revealed) understanding of a God so loving that the measure of his involvemnet with the world is that he takes upon himself, and unmasks, all its violence and dies by crucifixion, is infinitely morally superior to the understanding of divinity that, so far from being revealed, was the common currency of tribal religion three millennia ago, which involves seeing innocent women and children - children, for God's sake! - as fully deserving extermination, and all for the glory of God?

(Sorry, spugmeistress, your quote was just the starting point for this. I'm certainly not aiming this post at you, or any individual!)
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
Spugmeistress, you wrote
quote:
so you're saying that god allowed power coming from him (cos you say it was a result of genuine spiritual power) to kill two people as a result of a flawed human decision that he didnt really agree with? or are you saying peter killed them and then blamed it on god?
Well, yes, I guess I am. After all, the church has a long tradition of abusing genuine spiritual power, and that abuse has not infrequently led to deaths occuring. Do we lay all these deaths, the cathars, protestant and catholic martyrs, European Jewry, at God's door? Why is Peter any different? Of course, I think Peter genunely thought that he was an instrument of God's retribution, but my point was that the scripture doesn't claim that this belief was true. It's not so much Peter blamed it on God - he clearly didn't regard the act as blameworthy, more that he claimed it for God. The writer of acts makes no such claim.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
Matt Black:
quote:
Finally, consider that none deserve the mercy of God and God has no moral obligation to provide mercy or grace to any people. We all deserve death. It humbles me to consider God extended both mercy and grace to me in Jesus Christ.

So, that being said, only God can order genocide.
I'm sorry - I really can't believe that you are at ease saying this. I don't see the difference between this statement and the statement that fundamentally the only thing wrong with the Holocaust was that God didn't order it, and that if God had ordered it it would have been in general principle morally unexceptionable. I really don't want to believe that you think this, and I would be really grateful - and I'm not putting any sort of spin on this - if you could tell me how I am wrong in my take on what you're saying.
I can't really ad to what Lep or Custard have said about this, except that all I was referring to was the essence of starting point of the Gospel - namely that "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God" (Rom 3:21) and that "the wages of sin are death" - none of us deserve life was the point I was making; we like to think we do of course [Biased] .

Yours in Christ

Matt
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
Sorry to double post:
Spugmeistress, of course I believe the answer to your last rhetorical question
quote:
Are things immoral because we decide them to be, or because we think God is morally perfect and what he does/says (in context of course) is moral?
is the second of your propositions, that is, that is, that, to invert the statement, morality is, or should be, an expression in the world of the nature of God (and specifically the nature of Christ). It is for this reason that I cannot accept that what God declares is immoral for his creatures is in some way moral for Him. Quite apart from any other logical argument, Jesus commands us to be like him, who is like the Father. Aspiring to godly character is not hubris, it's obedience.
 
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
Why are we so scared to say straightforwardly that the (revealed) understanding of a God so loving that the measure of his involvemnet with the world is that he takes upon himself, and unmasks, all its violence and dies by crucifixion, is infinitely morally superior to the understanding of divinity that, so far from being revealed, was the common currency of tribal religion three millennia ago, which involves seeing innocent women and children - children, for God's sake! - as fully deserving extermination, and all for the glory of God?

Why? Well because what you are saying is tantamnount to saying we need to chuck the OT out the window as far as a revelation of God is concerned. Indeed, your interpretation of Joshua seems to read "God ordered the extermination of the Amalekites" into "People exterminated each other because they were bad" - which is in fact the exact OPPOSITE of what the passage actually says. So if I'm "scared" (and I think, TBH, that's a pretty manipulative way of trying to take the courageous moral crusader role) its because your view involves taking a view of the OT that is not consonant with any view I find described by Jesus or the apostles.
I have more to say about this whole issue. But later.
 
Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :
 
I've already said that I don't want to chuck out the OT. I don't see how you can understand the NT without the OT. But I do think that you subordinate the NT to the OT, and in fact try to understand the OT without reference to the NT, and in stand-alone terms. You seem to be stuck with an understanding of the Bible that makes everything in it of equal significance. And because there's genocide in there, it has to be genocide in a "good" sense. God's genocide. So - that's OK then.

I completely agree that Jesus warns of the awful dangers of ultimate separation from God - but I can't see anything in the NT that suggests that he buys into the whole OT on the terms that a twenty-first century propositioalist and/or inerrantist does. Nor do I see anywhere that we're required, in order to accept the Christ, to accept that the extirpation of whole populations is sometimes OK.

And before anyone quotes it at me, let me run up the passage
quote:
Luke.13
[1]
There were some present at that very time who told him of the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices.


[2] And he answered them, "Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans, because they suffered thus?
[3] I tell you, No; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish.
[4] Or those eighteen upon whom the tower in Silo'am fell and killed them, do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others who dwelt in Jerusalem?
[5] I tell you, No; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish."
What else is Jesus saying here than "Shit happens?" The opposition on this thread have been trying to convince the rest of us that God only does the genocide thing when it's richly deserved, wven by all those sinful little kids and perverted farm-animals. Jesus is saying here, quite explicitly, that that's not true.
 
Posted by Little Weed (# 4402) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
Why are we afraid to be horrified by genocide? ... which involves seeing innocent women and children - children, for God's sake! - as fully deserving extermination, and all for the glory of God?
Not that long ago there was a very moving report on Radio 5 Live following a massacre in Uganda. I invite anyone who defends genocide as ever being God's will to listen to the interview with one of the young survivors. For anyone feeling particularly sensitive be warned, it haunted me for a long time.

It’s two clicks away and it is an audio file.

Go to the Radio 5 archive page and scroll down to News – Uganda Report – Andrew Harding’s moving interview with Innocent Odongo.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Custard123:
Psyduck:

Are you saying that God is constrained by definitions of right and wrong created by his creatures?
No. But if I is to be called "Good", He is constrained against doing that which is intrinsically evil.

quote:
Yes, you can say all that stuff about God's self-revelation being coherent with our understanding. But the fact of the matter is that the book of Joshua is part of the Scriptures which point to Christ, and Christ certainly seemed to believe them as historical.

To my mind, there are two key facts here

1) Because of the way I reject God, I deserve whatever nasty forms of judgement he sees fit to send on me. So did the Amorites, etc.
I do not believe this is true. I'd go further - to suggest that the Amorites - even the Amorite babes in arms - deserved this is disgusting and monstrous. I'm not letting you anywhere near my child if you think they intrinsically deserve death. How the hell can you believe this?

quote:
(2) God as love does not preclude him from also being God as light, in whose presence we cannot stand except by the blood of Jesus.
It does preclude Him from being God the Sadistic Homicidal Maniac

quote:
Is it possible, from your point of view that God is love, not in the sense that uncritically accepts everyone but in the sense that offers to accept everyone, even a wretched sinner like me, despite what they are like, but that still leaves room for "Holy, Holy, Holy" and for "Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished"? Is that idea of God possible to you?

[I'm aware I am slightly misrepresenting you here, but it doesn't affect the sense of what I am asking.]
This goes well beyond "not leaving the guilty unpunished". It goes to slaughtering people wholesale. The fundamental problem is a theology that so screws up any normal sense of justice that the innocent child and the adult Ghandi are both seen as worthy of death. I can't possibly subscribe to that without a pre-frontal lobotomy.
 
Posted by Cheesy* (# 3330) on :
 
I'm not sure this will help, but..

First, should we not be careful about judging the moral behaviour of the past by the standards of today? Joshua's behaviour is unlikely to have been worse than anyone else's at the time (not that I am saying this is a good thing).

Second, the problem we face is how we deal with scripture if we find it morally repugnant. Personally I find David's behaviour a lot more sickening than Joshua's - yet he is the one who is held up as the great spiritual leader.

I once went to a series of bible studies on OT characters. I hold some responsibility for what happened, but the result was that I could not cope with the sugary sweet picture of Ruth, Moses and the others that was being projected. Soon after, I was reading a book, where we were encouraged to think about times in our lives where there was an 'exodus' someone who was like a 'pharoah', etc. Which has basically been already said, but it was helpful to me.

Anyway, the point is unless the scripture can we applied it is worthless. If our eyes and thoughts are distracted by the actions of the characters, are we also missing the message? Indeed, I do not remember being encouraged to emulate the actions of the OT characters but to admire their faith.

Third, and this is a weak point, we are not always told that God directly told the people to do the action. For example, it seems to me that God actually told Moses a relatively small amount of law and he then expanded and made the rest of it up. Ok I'm on shaky ground - I need to go and have a think about that one.

C
 
Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :
 
Cheesy:
quote:
Third, and this is a weak point, we are not always told that God directly told the people to do the action.
No, this is not a weak point. I'v eactually been attacking (as Karl Popper recommends!) the strongest form of the argument, which is that the OT always unequivocally ascribes these things to the accurate understanding of the will of God. I think it's probably fair to say that that's the 'internal understanding' of the texts - though that's a most un-postmodern standpoint; I should be saying that there's "nothing outside the text"! But it seems to me that to read these texts as artefacts, as accurate time-conditioned perspectives on early-Israelite post-victory practices and how they were theologized, is to treat them much more seriously than simply to assume that because they are in the Bible they must be what God wanted at the time. That approach is entirely based on assumptions people have about what the Bible must be when they approach it - a reading-in rather than a reading-out.
 
Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :
 
Sorry, Cheesy, I hope it's clear that I am agreeing with much of what you say! I'm multi-tasking between service preparation and posting! Doesn't make for clarity! [Hot and Hormonal]
 
Posted by Custard123 (# 5402) on :
 
I think we can agree that Jesus used the Psalms in worship, probably in a liturgical sense. So lets think about the most liturgical Psalm of them all (Ps 136)...

quote:

1 Give thanks to the LORD , for he is good.
His love endures forever.

10 to him who struck down the firstborn of Egypt
His love endures forever.
11 and brought Israel out from among them
His love endures forever.
12 with a mighty hand and outstretched arm;
His love endures forever.

15 but swept Pharaoh and his army into the Red Sea;
His love endures forever.

16 to him who led his people through the desert,
His love endures forever.
17 who struck down great kings,
His love endures forever.
18 and killed mighty kings-
His love endures forever.
19 Sihon king of the Amorites
His love endures forever.
20 and Og king of Bashan-
His love endures forever.
21 and gave their land as an inheritance,
His love endures forever.
22 an inheritance to his servant Israel;
His love endures forever.

26 Give thanks to the God of heaven.
His love endures forever.
Isn't it interesting that in this liturgy, which Jesus would have used, God's striking down of the firstborn of Egypt (including children), the killing of the kings and the confiscation of the land are all seen as loving acts?

quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
quote:
[5] I tell you, No; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish."
What else is Jesus saying here than "Shit happens?"
Well, actually he is saying that we will all perish unless we repent (and hence strongly implying that we all deserve to perish).
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
Originally posted by Leprechaun:

quote:
The evil of the Holocaust was one person or group of people taking it upon themselves to decide that another group of people should no longer be allowed to live. They had no right to do this. In essence it was Adam and Eve's sin gone mad - wanting to be like God, by the destruction of others.
What about the evil of the Holocaust being the destruction of human life which is intrinsically valuable - because human beings are created in the image of God, because Christ died to redeem them and because, through other human beings, we encounter Christ? Surely it was not merely God's sovereignty which was affronted at Auschwitz, but his justice and love.

I think the argument here is between two incommensurable views of God. The first sees the normative relationship between God and humanity as being one of violence. The fall has transformed the relationship between God and humanity into one of permanent and implacable hatred. God's inherent violence is discharged, as it were, through the cross rather as electrical energy is discharged through a lightning conductor making God reasonably safe for the elect, although those outside the charmed circle can expect a nasty shock (boom-boom!) in the afterlife or at the Parousia. God is incapable of entering into relationships except through violence.

The second view sees violence as being essentially evil. On this understanding the definitive revelation of God is in the person of Jesus Christ. This doesn't invalidate the previous revelation of God through the covenant with Israel but it relativises it. It becomes necessary to re-interpret the scriptures in the light of the life and teaching of our Lord. Non-violence, on this understanding, is not 'the way the Kingdom of God is advanced during the present age', in rather the way that the Communist Party between the wars allied with the Social Democrats but is something fundamental about God's nature and plan for humanity. Evil is defeated by love, the atonement is a work of reconciliation and forgiveness.

I think the second view is more coherent because, even if violence is justified in some instances, it is inherently separate from the good aims that justify it. A war to overthrow a tyrant may be a necessary pre-condition of establishing freedom and democracy, but I hope no-one here thinks that it is a sufficient condition. It is, in a sense, incidental to the main aim of establishing freedom just as beating a disobedient school boy bears no intrinsic relationship to the lesson one is trying to teach. Violence in human affairs is always, on some level, a sign of failure, the result of a breakdown in human relationships.
 
Posted by Custard123 (# 5402) on :
 
Callan - I think you're constructing a straw man here

Things you say I believe:
quote:
The fall has transformed the relationship between God and humanity into one of permanent and implacable hatred.
From our side, yes, unless we are regenerated by God's Spirit, because we cannot love God unless we have the Spirit. From God's side, no. There is a mixture of hatred (because of our sin) and love (because of God's grace) directed towards the same beings - a tension which a lot of the prophets spend a lot of time exploring. Hence the cross.

What I'm not meant to believe:
quote:

the definitive revelation of God is in the person of Jesus Christ. This doesn't invalidate the previous revelation of God through the covenant with Israel but it relativises it.
I agree.

quote:

It becomes necessary to re-interpret the scriptures in the light of the life and teaching of our Lord.
Only because they were wrongly interpreted in the first place. They were always all about Jesus. (Emmaus road, etc)
 
Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :
 
Leprechaun:
quote:
Well, actually he is saying that we will all perish unless we repent.
Yes, of course. I don't dispute that. He's saying that to be in a broken relationship with God is not to have life, and ultimately, to perish.

quote:
(and hence strongly implying that we all deserve to perish)
Now this is the big question. What do you mean "deserve to perish"? I believe that you are saying that the Bible says only one thing here - that since we have no deserts before God, we can't expect anything from God, and anything we do get is sheer grace. I think that that's a total distortion of what Paul says about grace and righteousness. I think it's bad theology and bad exegesis, but I also believe that it becomes morally repugnant when it leads one to a position in which one can say of a chld killed in an earthly, historical act of genocide - "She deserved it!"

I suggest as a working hypothesis that you can only get to here from the Bible if you construct penal substitutionary atonement as a separate, extra-biblical piece of theology, and then cram all the different perspectives of the Bible into it. I think that this approach takes what Paul has to say about the righteousness of the Law and the righteousness of faith, and purees it all in a great big blender with genocidal texts from Joshua and Samuel, and some of Jesus' sayings, and makes them all say the same thing - which is a thing that none of them in isolation say.
 
Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :
 
Callan - [Overused] [Overused] [Overused]
 
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
I've already said that I don't want to chuck out the OT. I don't see how you can understand the NT without the OT. But I do think that you subordinate the NT to the OT, and in fact try to understand the OT without reference to the NT, and in stand-alone terms. You seem to be stuck with an understanding of the Bible that makes everything in it of equal significance. And because there's genocide in there, it has to be genocide in a "good" sense. God's genocide. So - that's OK then.

I completely agree that Jesus warns of the awful dangers of ultimate separation from God - but I can't see anything in the NT that suggests that he buys into the whole OT on the terms that a twenty-first century propositioalist and/or inerrantist does.
I am afraid this does not wash with me. Any interpretation of the text, that basically says "this actually means the exact opposite of what it says" is more of a nonsense than saying God defines who is good and evil that we do not.
I know you don't want to throw the OT out, but the outcome of your view is that it doesn't say anything at all - because you read into it the opposite of the plain sense of the words.
No before you get all pomo on me, and say "there is no plain sense" I am agreed in most cases - but there is a plain sense in which God is described as ordering the massacres in Joshua - yet the lesson you draw from it is that people did it because they were evil. That's why I am (in your terms) scared of your interpretation - it makes a nonsense of the text.

And why do I have to prove that Jesus took the view of these texts that I take? You are the one who is claiming that Jesus launched a wholesale revision of the character of God as revealed in the OT which the Jewish community at his time viewed as a revelation of God. If Jesus wished to revolutionise these texts, he didn't do it very clearly - he didn't take them on, or challenge them - yet you are saying they are antithetical to the God he reveals.
I think the burden of proof lies on you as to why we should decry these texts as an epitome of evil, when Jesus never did any such thing.
 
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
Leprechaun:
And could you please attribute quotes to the right people.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
I think the burden of proof lies on you as to why we should decry these texts as an epitome of evil, when Jesus never did any such thing.
Because marching into cities and butchering the entire population self evidently is an epitome of evil.
 
Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :
 
Leprechaun:
quote:
And why do I have to prove that Jesus took the view of these texts that I take?
Er... because this is Purgatory? Because I'm under no specific obligation to take your opinions as oracular? Because that's what we do when we debate? Because I think your interpretations are profoundly wrong?

quote:
You are the one who is claiming that Jesus launched a wholesale revision of the character of God as revealed in the OT which the Jewish community at his time viewed as a revelation of God.
Yeah - me and the Church! And the New Testament!

quote:
If Jesus wished to revolutionise these texts, he didn't do it very clearly - he didn't take them on, or challenge them - yet you are saying they are antithetical to the God he reveals.
"You have heard it said... but I say to you..." That pretty much modifies our relationship with the whole OT. The Parable of the Lost Sheep? The Parable of the Prodigal Son?"

And then again, his death on the cross. "Father forgive them..." You seem to confine what is revealed in Jesus to what he said - and to say that what he didn't say we can fill in from the OT. You forget about what he did, and what he was. And is...

quote:
I think the burden of proof lies on you as to why we should decry these texts as an epitome of evil, when Jesus never did any such thing.
OK. Listen up. The things that are in them are just plain evil. We have to wrestle with them because they are there. Wrestling with them means taking them seriously, not ditching them. Wrestling with them means asking what they mean, not just accepting what they say, then scattering a pile of Christian platitudes over them to the effect that Genocide is Really Horrible, and if God does it he must have a Really Good Reason™.

I recall the story of a Divinity lecturer who put to a class the question "Why is it wrong to kill children?" He was one of these guys who got quieter the angrier he was, and as the fumbling attempts to elaborate an answer got lamer and petered out, so he was getting quieter and madder.

Finally he is supposed to have interryupted the last,a nd lamest, account with an outburst which was quoted to me as "God damn it to hell, it's just WRONG!!!" Don't you see where we're coming from?
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
But, don't you see, Psyduck, you're letting your fallible human sense of morality overtake your logical acceptance of God's Word on the matter?

[Biased]
 
Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :
 
KLB -

Damn! Now I see the flaw in my thinking. The scales have fallebn from my eyes!

....where's that 'sackcloth and ashes smiley when you want it?
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
My position is that God, revealed in Jesus Christ couldn't possibly order or sanction genocide
But God as revealed in Jesus Christ created a world in which every living thing dies sooner or later. Most of them while very young, many of them very horribly.

Exactly why is it worse for God to ordain that all Canaanites die tomorrow than it is to ordain that all the Canaanites die over a period of threescore years and ten?
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
For the same reason that it's wrong for me to kill my next door neighbour rather than to let him die when he dies.
 
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :
 
Of course I see where you are coming from!

But can't you see that saying "this is self evidently evil" is not enough? Quite apart from the fact that many people throughout history have not found it to be self evident, that it's as much a platitude as trusting that God has good reasons for doing things?

"You heard it was said God ordered the destruction of the Amorites, but I tell you it was not so?" Er..no, don't remember that.

I think Callan is right here. There are two basic philosophies.
One begins with repentance - I am willing to change my mind to think as God teaches no matter what. It depends on revelation, it believes in its own sinfulness, it realises it isn't really a very good arbiter of what is right and wrong.
The other begins with what is "self evident" and repents to that point. It is quite sure that it is quite a good arbiter of morality thank you very much. It, IMNSHO, is not repentance at all, as it doesn't actually involve changing one's mind about anything.

Now, before you get all Hellish, and tell me off for being moralistic, this is where it leads if you say "evil is self evident" - self becomes the arbiter of good and evil.
By all means, I can understand the argument based on Christ - although I think you'd have to adduce some better evidence than you have done that he doubted the truth of the OT - but if you make it in reference to self, then what you are saying is that we know better than God what is right and wrong. Which is a very scary prospect.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
So if God decreed that, say, feeding children through bacon slicers was moral, you'd swallow your revulsion and accept it?

I'm off to become a buddhist.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
Custard, you wrote
quote:
Well, actually he is saying that we will all perish unless we repent (and hence strongly implying that we all deserve to perish).
Well, no, actually. What he said was that his audience at the time, those who expected God to reward sin with punishment (and specifically the sin of Roman Imperialism with the retribution of a militaristic messiah) that this was in no way God's intention for messiah, and if they kept up with refusing to listen to Jesus correction of those expectations, then they would perish under the Roman sword. In short, it is this very linkage of sin with divine retribution, as oposed to with natural consequence, which He was attacking here.

But I repeat, whether or not we can demand anything good of God as of right is immaterial. He doesn't save us because we are good, but because He is good. And, along with many others here, I do not think that genocide is ever, in any circumstance or set of circumstances, justifiable, nor could it possibly be described as good, whoever the instigator. And if it is not good, it could not have been sanctioned by a good God, no matter what Jusua believed. And the primary reason that I believe that is because Jesus has shown me what the word "good" means.
 
Posted by Billfrid (# 7279) on :
 
Backing up a bit.........
I talked to Mr. Billfrid last night about this thread and he made the observation that in the bible there are several names for God - Jahweh, Adonai, Elohim etc. which got me thinking.
Why not take a slightly anthropological view of all this. If I saw the bible presented to me as a newly discovered text,and read these different names, I might reasonably draw the conclusion that the Israelites were acutally polytheists [Eek!]
Continuing in that vein, it might seem that there was one particular god who insisted that his followers worship and revere only him......he ordered his followers to exterminate other peoples, and they carried out his wishes [Frown]

Then much later a baby was born in a provincial city of the Roman empire called Bethlehem [Yipee]
I think we can guess the rest.
 
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
So if God decreed that, say, feeding children through bacon slicers was moral, you'd swallow your revulsion and accept it?

I'm off to become a buddhist.
I'm thinking that the basic difference here is between those of us who think that morality and ethics are the "absolutes" and those who think that biblical inerrancy is the "absolute"?

It's pretty amazing, is it not, that Christians can't even seem to agree on the idea that "Genocide is always wrong".
As one of the former partisans, I think that common sense tells me that this is the logical and Godly way for God to behave. I believe that in the same "straight-forward and logical" way that inerrantists posit biblical inerrantism. I don't actually see how we get around such an epistemological problem which seems to be a problem of first principles.

[ 08. July 2004, 11:07: Message edited by: Seeker963 ]
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
Lep, I think you are being a bit sniffy here:
quote:
I think Callan is right here. There are two basic philosophies.
One begins with repentance - I am willing to change my mind to think as God teaches no matter what. It depends on revelation, it believes in its own sinfulness, it realises it isn't really a very good arbiter of what is right and wrong.
The other begins with what is "self evident" and repents to that point. It is quite sure that it is quite a good arbiter of morality thank you very much. It, IMNSHO, is not repentance at all, as it doesn't actually involve changing one's mind about anything.
Perhaps it's just possible that, rather than beginning with what is self-evident, we are beginning with the character and nature of Jesus, and that our conscience, informed by the Holy Spirit, leads us to believe as we do. It thus becomes self evident, just as you believe inerrancy of the scriptures to be self evident, and for much the same reasons. Surely repentance is the bringing into line of our behaviour with what our consciences, informed by the Holy Spirit, tells us is God's will. I don't see that as a repentance which is in any way difficient. I really find it difficult to accept that you believe it is.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
Personally, I'm beginning with my conscience. I was pretty sure that genocide was evil when I was an atheist.

I don't have the necessary "silence" button on my conscience to tune it out. This is what Psyduck's "Goddammit, it's just wrong" is about and I'll freely admit it's the basis from which I'm working.

What's the point of having a conscience if we can't use it? What's the point of having empathy if we can't base anything on it?

From a pure logic position I understand where Lep et al. are coming from, but to work from pure logic in this manner, I need, as I've said multiple times before, a prefrontal lobotomy.
 
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Perhaps it's just possible that, rather than beginning with what is self-evident, we are beginning with the character and nature of Jesus, and that our conscience, informed by the Holy Spirit, leads us to believe as we do. It thus becomes self evident, just as you believe inerrancy of the scriptures to be self evident, and for much the same reasons. Surely repentance is the bringing into line of our behaviour with what our consciences, informed by the Holy Spirit, tells us is God's will. I don't see that as a repentance which is in any way difficient. I really find it difficult to accept that you believe it is.
JJ,
I made it clear that this was not what I was referring to, but the simple statement that things are evil "because they are." I don't find that an accpetable basis for making any moral decision. That is beginning with "self-evidence".
The repentance that is deficient is that which will only agree with what it already thinks. Basing arguments on "self evidence" alone is exactly that.

I agree with Seeker - there is an epistemological argument here which I am not sure is solvable. So, you'll be glad to know, that unless I genuinely feel I have something new to add to this discussion which hasn't bee trawled through several times forwards and backwards, I won't be contributing to it any more.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
To make my repentance complete I need to repent of finding genocide morally repugnant?

You're right; we are never going to get over this divide.
 
Posted by Belle (# 4792) on :
 
I've always been taught that the Jews were looking for a Messiah. Jesus came along and announced himself - in many ways, some subtler than others - to be that Messiah. All well and good. He did signs and wonders, he was close to God. He taught with authority. He knew things noone else knew. But - unlike the martial, OT style, where God came alongside the Jews and smote their enemies - Jesus departed radically from that theme - completely confounding most if not all of his followers. Seems to me we at least have to ask why. Why didn't God, through Jesus, depose the Romans, set up the Temple, usher in the Messianic age? Was it because the Jews at that time weren't righteous and thus didn't deserve a smiting saviour? Surely not - for as Christians we would argue that God had saved, in Jesus, his biggest and best weapon for last. No more smiting - no more messing about. He's brought in the big guns, the be all and end all weapon to do for sin - everyone's sin - not just the pagans, but the Jews - everyone at once. And how many people die this time? Just one - and who is the victim? God himself. Doesn't this cast a new light on EVERYTHING that has gone before? How can we ever see anything in the same light again? None of that smiting was good enough. None of it achieved God's ultimate aim. No - he achieved it once and for all, not by killing, but by dying. Killing not people but sin and death themselves.

We may well be judged harshly after we die. We are indeed warned to be careful how we judge in this life. God is no doubt disgusted by many of the things we do in this life. But - he has made provision for us in spite of that - and he hopes everyone of his lost lambs will take advantage of it. Jesus is God's answer isn't he, to all of our questions about what's right, what's wrong, where God's justice and mercy is. If he isn't - why call ourselves Christians - why point to the cross (and resurrection Fr G!) at all?

I'm confused that some people seem to want to go back to play the game by the old rules, when God played alongside you when you were good, and abandoned you (to teach you a lesson) when you were bad. That seems to me like God moving people like chess pieces. The carrot and stick approach to morality. I don't think God is as simplistic as that - but I think human perception of what God is doing in the world very often reduces him to it. Isn't a lot of Ecclesiastes in fact a consideration of how God doesn't do what we would expect in terms of rewarding good and punishing bad? Doesn't Jesus show that however things may have seemed to the Jews (and in fact I think we may be simplifying our view of the OT a bit for the purposes of this debate), that was never how they really were?

The cross has always been a bit of a curve ball for the law, hasn't it!
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
I agree with Seeker - there is an epistemological argument here which I am not sure is solvable. So, you'll be glad to know, that unless I genuinely feel I have something new to add to this discussion which hasn't bee trawled through several times forwards and backwards, I won't be contributing to it any more.
Wait. Don't go!

I do think that this epistemological dilemma can be solved.

The key is to realize that the way that things appear, and the way that they actually are, are often two different things.

A criminal believes that he has been put in prison by a vindictive judge. The truth may be that he was put in prison by his own activities, and that the judge would free him if he could.

A person in hell believes that he has been cast there by an angry God. The truth is that he has cast himself into hell, and that God would bring him out if only the person was willing.

The Bible is often written according to the way things appear rather than the way they really are. This does not mean that it is untrue.

This is the distinction that Jesus taught between those of old time saying you should hate your enemies, whereas the truth is that you should love your enemies. Neither means that you should allow yourself to be killed by your enemies, but the second is the true and good alternative. The first, however, is the way that it appears.

In addition to this distinction, an added layer of confusion is due to the Bible's metaphoric nature. Not everyone accepts that things happened in the Bible for the sake of metaphor, but there is no escaping that Jesus treated it that way. Jesus compared His death and resurrection to Jonah's time in the great fish, and to Moses' bronze serpent. He made constant use of this kind of symbolism. The numbers used in both the Old and New Testaments are clearly symbolic.

This means that we need to struggle with the idea that the Egyptians died, not because God killed them, or because they actually were evil, but because they were metaphorically evil and metaphors are more powerful than most people think. [Eek!]

[ 08. July 2004, 11:50: Message edited by: Freddy ]
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Belle:
But - unlike the martial, OT style, where God came alongside the Jews and smote their enemies - Jesus departed radically from that theme - completely confounding most if not all of his followers. Seems to me we at least have to ask why. Why didn't God, through Jesus, depose the Romans, set up the Temple, usher in the Messianic age? Was it because the Jews at that time weren't righteous and thus didn't deserve a smiting saviour? Surely not - for as Christians we would argue that God had saved, in Jesus, his biggest and best weapon for last. No more smiting - no more messing about. He's brought in the big guns, the be all and end all weapon to do for sin - everyone's sin - not just the pagans, but the Jews - everyone at once. And how many people die this time? Just one - and who is the victim? God himself. Doesn't this cast a new light on EVERYTHING that has gone before?
Fabulous. [Overused]

The Old Testament God is the appearance. The New Testament God is the reality.
 
Posted by Little Weed (# 4402) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Belle:
Doesn't Jesus show that however things may have seemed to the Jews (and in fact I think we may be simplifying our view of the OT a bit for the purposes of this debate), that was never how they really were?
Quite. Maybe one avenue we could explore is how Jews interpret the scriptures we have in common. My web trawl to see what resources may be readily available haven't got very far but I did come across this which I found interesting as it is on the precise point of Joshua and genocide.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
Originally posted by Leprechaun:

quote:
I think Callan is right here. There are two basic philosophies.
One begins with repentance - I am willing to change my mind to think as God teaches no matter what. It depends on revelation, it believes in its own sinfulness, it realises it isn't really a very good arbiter of what is right and wrong.
The other begins with what is "self evident" and repents to that point. It is quite sure that it is quite a good arbiter of morality thank you very much. It, IMNSHO, is not repentance at all, as it doesn't actually involve changing one's mind about anything.
I think that this is not quite an accurate picture. You seem to imagine revelation as something which irrupts into the world, clearly and unambiguously, leaving us with the task of either accepting it or rejecting it. On this understanding the Reich accepts it wholesale whereas us more sensitive liberal types have fastidious Guardianista reservations. Revelation and reason are entirely separate epistemological categories. Revelation is sure and certain and comes in a little black book entitled 'Holy Bible'.

Now most of us Guardianista types don't think that revelation works like that. We'd probably say that revelation comes about through the Divine illuminating the human intellect and, as such, is therefore partial, fallible and constrained by human biology and culture. We think, to be honest, that the Reich view of revelation is epistemologically naive and as it is extra-revelatory - it is, after all, a fairly recent interpretation of the Bible and out of step with the historic understanding of Christendom of the Bible - we do not feel constrained to accept it. For us the Word of God is the Lord Jesus Christ. We interpret the Bible through the lens of that revelation and in the light of the teachings of the Church and of the informed moral conscience.

Now in the light of the Church's clear teachings about genocide ("It's a bad thing" - various Popes, Church Fathers and theologians), of the fairly good moral arguments that can be adduced against Genocide and the Dominical witness to non-violence and love as a way of overcoming evil we are obliged, to conclude that Joshua is a product of its times and not normative. We doubt its historicity and dissent firmly from its ethics. This is a theological stance and, indeed, an explicitly Christian stance. Because we want to think as God teaches, no matter what.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Revelation is sure and certain and comes in a little black book entitled 'Holy Bible'.
I'm with Lep here. Revelation is sure and certain and comes in a little black book called the Bible.

I don't, however, think that Leprechaun properly understands and interprets it by carefully comparing the Old and New Testaments.

Still, I agree with what he is saying about "man's wisdom" and what appears to be "self-evident" compared with what God has revealed.

The key is to really understand what God has revealed.
 
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :
 
One more thing.

Making a badly misguided quip using the word "Reich" on a thread about genocide has just struck me as being in very bad taste, and potentially very offensive.

It was me who introduced it in a moment of light hearted banter. I wholeheartedly apologise, and respectfully request that people stop using it.

Cheerz
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
KLB - No I wouldn't and no He wouldn't. Christians are safe, we don't have to kill ANY ONE in His name - in fact I'd go as far as to see it's implicitly at least forbidden and impossible to do so. I can kill otherwise, in self and other defense of course without question as a citizen. He'll do His own killing, for His own, perfect, unfathomable, unrevealed reasons, predicated on His revealed, perfect love.

[ 08. July 2004, 12:53: Message edited by: Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard ]
 
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Wait. Don't go!

I do think that this epistemological dilemma can be solved.

The key is to realize that the way that things appear, and the way that they actually are, are often two different things. <snip>
Fabulous post, Freddy. [Overused]
 
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
He'll do His own killing, for His own, perfect, unfathomable, unrevealed reasons, predicated on His revealed, perfect love.
Yes as long as I'm killed in love, then it's okay.
 
Posted by HangerQueen (# 6914) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Belle:
But - unlike the martial, OT style, where God came alongside the Jews and smote their enemies - Jesus departed radically from that theme - completely confounding most if not all of his followers. Seems to me we at least have to ask why. Why didn't God, through Jesus, depose the Romans, set up the Temple, usher in the Messianic age? Was it because the Jews at that time weren't righteous and thus didn't deserve a smiting saviour? Surely not - for as Christians we would argue that God had saved, in Jesus, his biggest and best weapon for last. No more smiting - no more messing about. He's brought in the big guns, the be all and end all weapon to do for sin - everyone's sin - not just the pagans, but the Jews - everyone at once. And how many people die this time? Just one - and who is the victim? God himself. Doesn't this cast a new light on EVERYTHING that has gone before?
Fabulous. [Overused]

The Old Testament God is the appearance. The New Testament God is the reality.
I duno, Freddy (although I agree with you that Belle's post is excellent). And I'm reminded of when God says "See! I am doing a new thing!" But the OT God and the NT God are the same God. If we stop believing that, we begin the slide into Gnosticism.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by HangerQueen:
But the OT God and the NT God are the same God. If we stop believing that, we begin the slide into Gnosticism.
I agree. The OT God and the NT God are the same. But the NT God is a clearer and more accurate version, where as the OT God is a more clouded, mysterious, and symbolic version.

This is why Jesus said "You have heard it said by them of old time....but I say to you." He is refining the Old Testament explanations, but making it clear that this is the same God we are dealing with.
 
Posted by Custard123 (# 5402) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
He'll do His own killing, for His own, perfect, unfathomable, unrevealed reasons, predicated on His revealed, perfect love.
Yes as long as I'm killed in love, then it's okay.
Which is precisely why I posted that lengthy quote from Ps 136 earlier
 
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :
 
quote:
Psyduck says:
And before anyone quotes it at me, let me run up the passage

quote: Luke.13
[1]
There were some present at that very time who told him of the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices.


[2] And he answered them, "Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans, because they suffered thus?
[3] I tell you, No; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish.
[4] Or those eighteen upon whom the tower in Silo'am fell and killed them, do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others who dwelt in Jerusalem?
[5] I tell you, No; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish."

What else is Jesus saying here than "Shit happens?" The opposition on this thread have been trying to convince the rest of us that God only does the genocide thing when it's richly deserved, wven by all those sinful little kids and perverted farm-animals. Jesus is saying here, quite explicitly, that that's not true.
But the whole point of Jesus' warning about the fall of Jerusalem was that it was to be because the Jewish people had rejected Him at the time of his revelation to them. So the concept of 'collective punishment' extends into the NT. The question we are down to is whether Joshua heard the instruction from God aright or not. I don't think the text really allows us to argue other than he did. So has God changed? Nope - the reality of future judgement is a clear NT theme. Not popular today....

One of the issues is:

quote:
Freddy:

But anyone who really thinks about it must know that all the Philistines, Egyptians, and Canaanites couldn't possibly have been bad. They were most likely exactly like the Israelites as far as their moral character was concerned.
This is the exact opposite of what the OT is indicating - the Cannanites were especially obnoxious to God, and deserved to be kicked out.

A point to notice is that the genocidal instruction is an oddity; it was not the normal pattern for the conquering army to come in and cleanse the land of those there - rather you would take the people as slaves and their property as loot. The behaviour of the Israelites is therefore not explained away as the normal behaviour of the time, but is actually extrordinary. Note the way that they treat the Gibeonites when they fool the Israelites into thinking they are not a local tribe.
 
Posted by Custard123 (# 5402) on :
 
JJ - how on earth did you read that into this verse?

quote:
[5] I tell you, No; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish."

 
Posted by ONUnicorn (# 7331) on :
 
Someone wanted a chapter and verse that implys the slaughter was ordered by God. In response I give you 1 Samuel Chapter 15 (Not Joshua, I know, but still...)
quote:
1 Then Samuel said to Saul, "The LORD sent me to anoint you as king over His people, over Israel; now therefore, listen to the words of the LORD. 2 "Thus says the LORD of hosts, 'I will punish Amalek {for} what he did to Israel, how he set himself against him on the way while he was coming up from Egypt. 3 'Now go and strike Amalek and utterly destroy all that he has, and do not spare him; but put to death both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.' "
As we should know, Saul does not obey here, he leaves some of Amalek alive.

quote:
9 But Saul and the people spared Agag and the best of the sheep, the oxen, the fatlings, the lambs, and all that was good, and were not willing to destroy them utterly; but everything despised and worthless, that they utterly destroyed.
God told Saul to destroy Amalek and all associated with it. Taking just this passage, there are several possible reasons for this
1. The people were following Amalek's gods, and God wanted to put a halt to this ASAP.

2. Leaving any of Amalek alive would NOT stop the people from following Amalek's gods, and the idolitry would be more widespread.

3. Leaving any of Amalek alive would leave an enemy at Israel's back to attack them later.

4. In Genesis, God tests Abraham by asking him to kill the son God promised would be his heir. This seemed totaly illogical to Abraham, but out of faithfulness to God he was doing it. He passed the test, and God spared Abraham. Perhaps for Saul this is a similar test, one he fails.

5. God knew Saul would fail this test, and as God only made Saul king to show the Isrealites what a lousy king could be to begin with (God intentionally picked someone totally unqualified to be king when he picked Saul) he wanted an excuse to remove Saul from power (which he did - as punishment for leaving some of Amalek alive).

As I said in my earlier post, beginning with the Roman occupation of Judea, God tries a different approach to things. Plan A didn't work, so he goes to Plan B. Obviously, he knew Plan A wouldn't work when he started, but he still had to try Plan A anyhow.

Another way to look at the God/man relationship...

God is an artist. Creation is his artwork. We'll compare it to a painting.

When one is a painter, one occasionally makes a mistake. Sometimes one works the mistake into the painting. Othertimes, one paints over the mistake.

Perhaps, when God orders Genocide, he is using the red paint to cover the blue paint he didn't want there anyway.

Perhaps, when Christ came, enough of the picture was done, that covering mistakes was no longer practical, and it is now easier to work it into the design.

I had to write a 30 page senior thesis before I could graduate from University. I know that when you contract it is, you use its. It is ALWAYS gramatically incorrect to write it's. However, my instinct for contracting it is is to use it's. So, after the paper was done I did find-replace to change all the it's to its.

I was God of that paper. I committed genocide on the '. Was that wrong of me?

What right do we, the creations, have to judge the motives of the artist creating us?

God created love just as surely as he created everything else. Doesn't he have a better understanding of what it is than we do?
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
quote:
Freddy:

But anyone who really thinks about it must know that all the Philistines, Egyptians, and Canaanites couldn't possibly have been bad. They were most likely exactly like the Israelites as far as their moral character was concerned.
This is the exact opposite of what the OT is indicating - the Cannanites were especially obnoxious to God, and deserved to be kicked out.

A point to notice is that the genocidal instruction is an oddity; it was not the normal pattern for the conquering army to come in and cleanse the land of those there - rather you would take the people as slaves and their property as loot. The behaviour of the Israelites is therefore not explained away as the normal behaviour of the time, but is actually extrordinary.
Egyptians were specifically not to be attacked. In fact they can be admitted to the assembly of the Lord - i.e. if they move in they can count as Jews. And Philistines were meant to be smited, but not wiped out.
 
Posted by Belle (# 4792) on :
 
Something here seriously does not compute for me.

Here we have John 1
quote:
1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning.
3Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4In him was life, and that life was the light of men. 5The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood[1] it.
This suggests to me that Jesus was around from the beginning - which I thought was generally accepted in Christian circles. Is God not unchanging? How can the boundless love and grace you see on the cross be present in the tribal struggles reflected in some of the books of the OT?

Yes the Canaanites probably did things that were offensive to God. But so do we all. So, if it came to it, did the Israelites - or do we suddenly believe that 'a little' sin doesn't offend God's holiness? Perhaps his standards were a little less exacting in those days?

Isn't it a bit inconsistent to smite a bunch of people you already know you're going to die for? They were so disgusting he just had to go out and sacrifice his son for them - or is it just that all this actually disproves the gospel? John was wrong. God didn't die for everyone after all. Maybe the Calvinists are right?

I put it to you that any apparent conflict between the God of love as seen in Jesus's salvific work on the cross and thereafter and the God of smiting is the result of history being recorded through the eyes of those who, while devout and faithful have not always understood the light in the darkness. They have done their best according to their lights, and in many cases that was a pretty fine best. However, in some cases - ie keeping their faith and culture alive in a pagan world that often threatened to extinguish it, they did what they had to do. And, like people reared in that environment did (and let's face it - we still do today), they ascribed their successes to God being with them and against their enemies. When they failed God was against them. But, at the same time, many writers in the Bible grappled with the question of why things didn't always seem to follow these nice neat rules. Job saw that the righteous don't always get their just reward. The writer of Ecclesiastes noted that strangely, good things happen to the wicked just as often as the good. Wasn't it Jonah who was angry because God wouldn't smite the Ninevites? Why is it that people always seem surprised when God doesn't run true to the logical pattern they've cut for him. They keep trying to get him back into the groove and he just won't fit. It's not the love and mercy that's the anomaly - it's the violence and hatred. And that's what he came here to offer a solution to.

Must go - computer time over. Sorry to post and run!
 
Posted by Custard123 (# 5402) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Belle:
Isn't it a bit inconsistent to smite a bunch of people you already know you're going to die for?
Great question Belle.

I think we need to be clear that Jesus died for anybody and everybody who accepts his offer of forgiveness.

He died to offer the chance of forgiveness of sin to everyone, but only to forgive the sin of those who accept it. Otherwise, there would be no hell and that would contradict what Jesus said.

So how can God punish and die for the same people? Isn't that what Hosea (among other books) is all about?
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
If God died to save them, then how is smiting them really a punishment if they end up in heaven afterwards?
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
Da-dah! Most GRACEful Ken.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
So how can God punish and die for the same people? Isn't that what Hosea (among other books) is all about?
Schizoid personality?

Please don't convince me you're right, Custard. Rest assured I will abandon Christianity if you do - it is too ridiculous and morally repugnant to believe in.
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
And Freddy, why would God kill YOU? You're not a member of a helplessly depraved bronze age tribe are you? ALL of the OT paved the way for a society in to which it was possible for God to incarnate. The Son did it ALL. The Spirit gets a look in and is just as lethal as the son.

Since the 10 commandment old covenant theocracy died with Him it is not for us to arrogate ANY of God's prerogatives which He delegated specifically to it to achieve His end: His incarnation, our salvation.

He did it ALL to save ALL. There is no better way possible. That was, as this is and will be the best of all possible worlds.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Custard123:
I think we need to be clear that Jesus died for anybody and everybody who accepts his offer of forgiveness.

He died to offer the chance of forgiveness of sin to everyone, but only to forgive the sin of those who accept it.
This is in fact the inconsistency between the Biblical account and our contemporary ideas of what God's morals should be.

If God had condemned all those people to hell anyway, then him having them killed early changes nothing really. After all, he'd made them so they were going to die anyway. All very unfortunate for them, but that's life.

And if Jesus died for them and they are bound for heaven - well their story has a happy ending - along with those of all the other genocide and murder victims there ever were. Whoopee!

But if Jesus died for them but they are only able to be saved if they accept the offer of forgiveness, then God really has screwed them over. Because Joshua and his pals - God's people - don't turn up with an offer of forgiveness. They turn up with fire and the sword.

In that Arminian scenario the Canaanites don't have time to be saved. They just get killed before they have a chance to find out what all this God stuff is about.

And even the survivors (which the Bible makes clear were the majority, even though that isn't what it says was supposed to happen) are stuffed - because instead of the prophets of a God of Love all they see in the Hebrews is a load of thieves and murderers. They can certainly be forgiven (by us, if not by God) for not taking anything that lot said about a God of Love at face value.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
it is not for us to arrogate ANY of God's prerogatives which He delegated specifically to it to achieve His end: His incarnation, our salvation.

He did it ALL to save ALL. There is no better way possible. That was, as this is and will be the best of all possible worlds.
Are you sure you aren't a closet Barthist Martin?
 
Posted by Custard123 (# 5402) on :
 
I don't think that's all the chance they had. Look at Rahab, look at the Gibeonites (was it the Gibeonites??)....

And I'm not an Arminian, but this isn't the place to discuss that.

[ 08. July 2004, 18:44: Message edited by: Custard123 ]
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
A factor that no one has yet mentioned is that most of the killing and death in the Old Testament is connected with miracles.

For example There are many other examples. It is clear from many things said that all of Israel's victories were miraculous. When they did not serve Jehovah the miracles went in the opposite direction.

It seems to me that an understanding of how miracles and magic work is needed here. The idea that God simply destroys whoever He wishes is too simplistic to be taken seriously.

Are people unaware of the laws that govern these phenomena? [Confused]
 
Posted by Little Weed (# 4402) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Joshua and his pals - God's people - don't turn up with an offer of forgiveness. They turn up with fire and the sword.
What comes across to me in Joshua is that we are still at the stage of competing local Gods. I can’t see any suggestion that God’s purpose extends to the other tribes in any way whatsoever except to exterminate them so they don’t contaminate his people. He’s the God of Israel and no-one else and he goes, geographically, where they go. This is not God revealing a part of his character we don’t like; this is man’s limited understanding of God and imagining him in their own warlike image.
 
Posted by ONUnicorn (# 7331) on :
 
quote:
What comes across to me in Joshua is that we are still at the stage of competing local Gods. I can’t see any suggestion that God’s purpose extends to the other tribes in any way whatsoever except to exterminate them so they don’t contaminate his people.
Thank you!!! That is the point I've been trying to make (part of it at least).
 
Posted by Little Weed (# 4402) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ONUnicorn:
quote:
What comes across to me in Joshua is that we are still at the stage of competing local Gods. I can’t see any suggestion that God’s purpose extends to the other tribes in any way whatsoever except to exterminate them so they don’t contaminate his people.
Thank you!!! That is the point I've been trying to make (part of it at least).
Er, no. I went on to say
quote:
This is not God revealing a part of his character we don’t like; this is man’s limited understanding of God and imagining him in their own warlike image.
Apart from the fact that I had a singular subject and a plural possessive I stand by that. If observant Jews understand it like that, that people made mistakes about what they thought God wanted them to do (see link in previous post), why isn't that the right way for us to interpret it too?
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
quote:
Freddy:
But anyone who really thinks about it must know that all the Philistines, Egyptians, and Canaanites couldn't possibly have been bad. They were most likely exactly like the Israelites as far as their moral character was concerned.
This is the exact opposite of what the OT is indicating - the Cannanites were especially obnoxious to God, and deserved to be kicked out.
Yes, I am aware that the OT declares these people to be evil. I wholeheartedly agree that in general they were evil. If they weren't evil then Christ would never have had to come.

My point was that all of them couldn't have been evil, especially the young. And my point was especially that the Israelites were no better, being prone to exactly the same wicked practices, cruel, violent and adulterous behaviors. This is clearly recorded in the Bible, along with terms like "stiff-necked people" and "wicked and adulterous generation."

So both Israelites and non-Israelites were wicked. The reason is that in the countdown to the Incarnation humanity in general was becoming more and more depraved.

The holiness that Israel had was a ritual, symbolic, metaphoric holiness and goodness. Their laws and rituals, and their obedience to them, stood for very holy things having to do with love to God and the neighbor. Their victories were metaphors for Christ's victories against hell. Everything about them was perceived according to their metaphoric value by the angels. This enabled a connection with heaven that prevented hell from completely taking over humanity in the time before the Advent.

I know that everyone does not accept the idea that ritual holiness was a real thing or that it had actual value. But to my mind this explains the miraculous nature of Israel's victories, and especially the miraculous deaths of so many of those who opposed them.

When enemies opposed Israel they removed the normal protection from hell that angels continually provide everyone. This was because of the powerful symbolism associated with Israel. The result was that the hells then destroyed the people in a way that exactly corresponded to the attacking evils that they themselves represented.

It was not God, but hell that did this. God did not prevent it, just as He does not prevent wars and other forms of genocide, but He did not cause it.
 
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
quote:
Freddy:
But anyone who really thinks about it must know that all the Philistines, Egyptians, and Canaanites couldn't possibly have been bad. They were most likely exactly like the Israelites as far as their moral character was concerned.
This is the exact opposite of what the OT is indicating - the Cannanites were especially obnoxious to God, and deserved to be kicked out.
Yes, I am aware that the OT declares these people to be evil. I wholeheartedly agree that in general they were evil. If they weren't evil then Christ would never have had to come.

Let's be clear - according to the OT the people who were occupying Cannan at the time of the invaision by Joshua were killed as a specific act of God's judgment on them - because they were particularly evil, and God's patience had run out. The issue of the collective guilt descending onto the children is one that applies to any act of God's judgement, of which there are many in the Old AND New Testament. The only conclusion we can draw is that parents have sins are indeed still visited onto the next generation - that's the way of the world....

There are therefore 2 specific issues here - was the genocide in Cannan a specific act of God's judgement, and was the action of Joshua in obedience to the God who revealed himself to Jesus. The two are seperate; Jeremiah and others make clear that God uses pagan nations in judgement on the people of Israel - so there was no 'need' for God to use Israel to kill off the Cannanites.

On the general point of the wickedness of Israel - the record of the OT is that they started well and slowly slipped away from Yahweh to the point where he acted in judgement against them until they repented. To claim that they were no better - at the time of the invaision of Cannan - than the people they were kicking out just ain't what the OT indicates.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
Enders Shadow, you wrote
quote:
But the whole point of Jesus' warning about the fall of Jerusalem was that it was to be because the Jewish people had rejected Him at the time of his revelation to them. So the concept of 'collective punishment' extends into the NT.
Whilst you asked, Custard
quote:
JJ - how on earth did you read that into this verse?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[5] I tell you, No; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish."
I don't think, ES, that is at all the natural meaning of the verse. What was it that the people had to repent of. Surely the natural meaning would be the belief that God has any intention of smiting the wicked, whether they be the victims of a building collapse or the Roman occupiers. This is not collective punishment by God for the rejection of Jesus, but the natural result of attempting to meet violence with violence.
 
Posted by Esmeralda (# 582) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ONUnicorn I had to write a 30 page senior thesis before I could graduate from University. I know that when you contract it is, you use its. It is ALWAYS gramatically incorrect to write it's. However, my instinct for contracting it is is to use it's. So, after the paper was done I did find-replace to change all the it's to its.
I was God of that paper. I committed genocide on the '. Was that wrong of me?
Yes, actually, it was entirely and unequivocally wrong. It's exactly the other way around. The contraction of it is, is it's, with apostrophe. Its without apostrophe is the genitive, meaning belonging to it. Common sense tells us that the apostrophe is used to indicate what is missed out, in this case the 'i' of 'is'. So you were in fact a rather bad God of that paper; you should have followed your original instinct and left the apostrophe in.
Could it be that our instincts about genocide - that it is always bad - are also right? After all, God has, according to Ecclesiastes, 'set eternity in the hearts of human beings'. We are still, however sinful, made in God's image, and we still have the innate conscience, the sense of right and wrong, which God gave us (Romans 1 makes this fairly clear in talking of pagans who find God's law in their own hearts). The conscience may be deluded by sin, but it is not destroyed.
ISTM that this is becoming a debate about what it really means to be human. If total depravity means there is nothing good in us at any level, if 'our righteousness is as filthy rags' is an absolute statement (we have no righteousness) rather than a relative one (in comparison with God, our righteousness is pretty feeble) - if this is so, then clearly our sense of what is moral bears no relation to what really is moral, or what God counts as moral.
If, however, as I believe, the image of God in us is never erased, and that as creatures of God we are innately capable of great good as well as great evil, then our sense of morality is a reflection of God's. What it comes down to in the end is whether you believe we are born damned, or born blessed. As a parent, I believe my child is born blessed. God is a parent too - is God's view of us not the same?
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
Some would say I'm a bit of a Barthtard, yes Ken.
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
And yes I know he's Homer's son.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Let's be clear - according to the OT the people who were occupying Cannan at the time of the invaision by Joshua were killed as a specific act of God's judgment on them - because they were particularly evil, and God's patience had run out.
No argument here. This is what the OT says, and in general I would say that the OT is accurate here.

The other point is of course that they were occupying the Holy Land, and defiling it with their idolatries.

Whether it was God Himself who destroyed them, or caused their destruction is a different point.
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
On the general point of the wickedness of Israel - the record of the OT is that they started well and slowly slipped away from Yahweh to the point where he acted in judgement against them until they repented. To claim that they were no better - at the time of the invaision of Cannan - than the people they were kicking out just ain't what the OT indicates.
Yes, they were very temporarily quite faithful. This is virtually the only time in their history when they are described as faithful. They didn't start well, either as the sons of Jacob, or as the crowd that left Egypt. Not that I am criticizing them, since no one else was faithful either.

But no reasonable person can read these stories and conclude that the people described are any saintlier than anyone else. There are a few good characters - Joseph, Moses, Daniel, umm, ummm - but for the most part even the heroes are violent, adulterous, and self-seeking.

Their holiness as a people loved by God (and of course all people are loved by God) was a metaphoric holiness because they served Jehovah, lived in the Sacred Land, and it would be to them that the Christ would be born, and the Word of God written down. These are all good and honorable things, and ample reason for the identity of God's chosen people. But it was not that they were good.
 
Posted by Tuggboat (# 7001) on :
 
I used to find it hard to believe that God would let people get burned up. But Nowadays I just look at that OT stuff as confirming that he will. He is not just mildly pissed over our and others sin. Even though we're believers our transgressions still make him very very Big time, Big God angry. Without Christ he would look on even us as chaff to be burned. He's ordered it done before. Next time he orders his angels to do it.

AS far a predestination... I have to remember over and over again, I don't make the rules. I'm not God and If I don't love him for everything he is while I'm on Earth am I going to want to spend eternity with him? We have no concept what justice is except what he defines it as. If believing and fruits of our belief are what count in his game who am I to say he needs to change the rules so countries and races count instead. We'll learn true justice when we see one or two from a nation plucked from the flames by Christ, not whole pagan nations. He's promised Justice as well as Mercy. He won't let us down.
 
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tuggboat:
We have no concept what justice is except what he defines it as.
This is patently false. Many whole societies who never knew God's definition of justice have nonetheless created justice systems which while imperfect were not wholly bizarre and arbitrary.
 
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Every time I see the clipped form of the title of this thread on the main index...

This is the thread...

it reminds me of that horrid chorus "This is the day that the Lord has made"...

Shiver.
 
Posted by Peppone (# 3855) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tuggboat:
Without Christ he would look on even us as chaff to be burned.
You make it sound like God and Christ are in conflict. The classic falsehood: Christ saves and protects us from God.

A very odd concept.
 
Posted by ekalb (# 2642) on :
 
Is it too simplistic to say that the directions to go and 'wipe out everything and everyone' are hyperbole? Maybe even an ancient near-eastern idiom for victory?
Afterall, even the most conservative reading of holy script allows for idiosyncratic phrases - does it not?
 
Posted by Zeke (# 3271) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Peppone:
quote:
Originally posted by Tuggboat:
Without Christ he would look on even us as chaff to be burned.
You make it sound like God and Christ are in conflict. The classic falsehood: Christ saves and protects us from God.

A very odd concept.
I've seen that "good cop, bad cop" thing more times than I have cared to.
 
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Enders Shadow, you wrote
quote:
But the whole point of Jesus' warning about the fall of Jerusalem was that it was to be because the Jewish people had rejected Him at the time of his revelation to them. So the concept of 'collective punishment' extends into the NT.
Whilst you asked, Custard
quote:
JJ - how on earth did you read that into this verse?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[5] I tell you, No; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish."
I don't think, ES, that is at all the natural meaning of the verse. What was it that the people had to repent of. Surely the natural meaning would be the belief that God has any intention of smiting the wicked, whether they be the victims of a building collapse or the Roman occupiers. This is not collective punishment by God for the rejection of Jesus, but the natural result of attempting to meet violence with violence.
I'm losing the plot here about what is being argued. So let me seperate 2 different things:

When Jesus is speaking in Luke 13, he is referring to the usual, run of the mill, events of life - where bad things happen to people. In that case, to my mind, the justice is that we all deserve it - because of our sin - but those specific people are not more evil than the ones who didn't catch it on that occaision.

Where he is referring to the fall of Jerusalem (e.g Mt 23) then this is as a result of the explicit judgement of God in response to a particular evil.

In both cases however the central justification is that all have sinned, so deserve such treatment.

But this is a different argument from whether God explicitly told Joshua to do it....
 
Posted by HangerQueen (# 6914) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by HangerQueen:
But the OT God and the NT God are the same God. If we stop believing that, we begin the slide into Gnosticism.
I agree. The OT God and the NT God are the same. But the NT God is a clearer and more accurate version, where as the OT God is a more clouded, mysterious, and symbolic version.

This is why Jesus said "You have heard it said by them of old time....but I say to you." He is refining the Old Testament explanations, but making it clear that this is the same God we are dealing with.
That makes sense. Progressive revelation, with Jesus being the ultimate revelation of God.

I agree we have to look at the OT in light of the NT. Doesn't make the book of Joshua any easier though.

Man, I had to type that 3 times before I removed all the spelling mistakes. Too much coffee....
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zeke:
quote:
Originally posted by Peppone:
quote:
Originally posted by Tuggboat:
Without Christ he would look on even us as chaff to be burned.
You make it sound like God and Christ are in conflict. The classic falsehood: Christ saves and protects us from God.

A very odd concept.
I've seen that "good cop, bad cop" thing more times than I have cared to.
Spot on. At worst, it becomes a sort of internal conflict in the Trintiy whereby Jesus forces the Father's hand behind His back so He can't squash us whilst we sneak into heaven on a technicality.

Perhaps people need to read "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe" remembering that the Witch is not God.
 
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Wait. Don't go!

I do think that this epistemological dilemma can be solved.

The key is to realize that the way that things appear, and the way that they actually are, are often two different things. <snip>
Fabulous post, Freddy. [Overused]
Unless I'm being dim, though, we still have the following problem.

On the one hand, we have "people like me" who say that God is a God who is always life-giving and who never condones murder or genocide. It was sinful human nature that caused even the faithful "writers" of the Old Testament to not understand this. However, Jesus showed and told us unequivocally that this was the case.

On the other hand, we have people who believe that "what God is really like" is inerrantly interpreted in biblical narrative; and if the bible says that God ordered peoples to be killed, then he did. It is only from our sinful human perspective that we want to "play God" and make the judgement that this act was sinful.

So I still don't see how we get out of the epistemological circle.
 
Posted by kiwigoldfish (# 5512) on :
 
Without wanting to enter Dead Horse territory, this debate is precisely what keeps me from being a fully fledged inerrantist. It seems to me that if I were to believe in a Bible with no error in what it affirms leaves me with a God who made an error.

The Canaanites were nasty work. They apparantly sacrificed their children to gods (which could be propaganda if Joshua is a purely human work.) But for God to remedy this situation by having the Israelites kill all of them, and all their children seems morally reprobate. "They kill some of their kids for other gods, so I'll get you to kill all of their children for me."

I think Joshua plain got it wrong. Or maybe it's a legend, using an extreme story to make a point about righteousness.
 
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
But if Jesus died for them but they are only able to be saved if they accept the offer of forgiveness, then God really has screwed them over. Because Joshua and his pals - God's people - don't turn up with an offer of forgiveness. They turn up with fire and the sword.

In that Arminian scenario the Canaanites don't have time to be saved. They just get killed before they have a chance to find out what all this God stuff is about.
Quite right. Of course, if you're a non-Universalist strict Calvinist (and I know you're not), then you have the even worse problem that God made them all just to torture them even if some of them were the pleasantest people alive - unless the victims of genocide are all elect, but they couldn't have been because they didn't know anything about God's promises.

Question - why is it a really bad thing (don't say "because God says so - I mean why does he say so?" to kill a baby if you're a strict Calvinist? Surely the answer is that that baby might not be one of the elect, so you take away the only happiness it will ever know.

Question - why is it a really bad thing to kill a baby if you're a strict Arminian? Surely the answer is that you take away the baby's chance to make the right choice.


Martin the Barthtard. I like it [Killing me]
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
We would not have Jesus, beloved of all here, liberal, rationalist, fundamentalist, inerrantist - wherever we are on the Calvinist-Arminain spectrum - without Joshua (it's the same name of course). Without the Son having intervened ferociously, directly in the Bronze age as Israel's scorched earth general to create a milieu to be born in. To infer that He was 'growing up' with us as Mad Geo did, to rationalize away His ferocious anger, his jealousy, even as anthropomorphisms, to blame OURSELVES for being culturally inadequate interpreters of His revelation is to demean us and Him.
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
Liberal rationalists always have a very uphill dialectical struggle. Their antithesis to squaring the circle of THE KILLER GOD OF THE OT vs. Gentle Jesus Meek and Mild is wrought, riven with a plethora of problems about the nature of God just as the conservative Biblical synthesis that reveals Him as both. More so I perceive.
 
Posted by Custard123 (# 5402) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
Question - why is it a really bad thing (don't say "because God says so - I mean why does he say so?" to kill a baby if you're a strict Calvinist? Surely the answer is that that baby might not be one of the elect, so you take away the only happiness it will ever know.
Not the answer I'd give (I'm a Christian who thinks that Calvin was generally right, but don't like being called a Calvinist). Also, the Bible does suggest different nastinesses of hell, based on opportunity (Mt 11:22), so you could argue that keeping them alive if they are not elect just makes things worse for them.

I'd say that it's because God tells us not to and because killing another on my authority is effectively saying that I am better than them.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
You don't find it inherently wrong, then - just going beyond your authority?
 
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Liberal rationalists always have a very uphill dialectical struggle. Their antithesis to squaring the circle of THE KILLER GOD OF THE OT vs. Gentle Jesus Meek and Mild is wrought, riven with a plethora of problems about the nature of God just as the conservative Biblical synthesis that reveals Him as both. More so I perceive.
Sorry, are you saying that all liberal rationalists believe in "THE KILLER GOD OF THE OLD TESTAMENT and in Gentle Jesus Meek and Mild?"

And, just out of curiousity, do you think everyone to your theological left is a liberal rationalist or do you mean to pin-point a specific type amongst the many types of non-inerrantsts? I'm just asking because it feels to me that this is the second time you've raised this particular image - which I'd cosider to be a gross caricature (although I'm sure that we could find someone somewhere who believes it).
 
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Custard123:
Not the answer I'd give (I'm a Christian who thinks that Calvin was generally right, but don't like being called a Calvinist).
Sorry, you've lost me. Why not?

quote:
Also, the Bible does suggest different nastinesses of hell, based on opportunity (Mt 11:22), so you could argue that keeping them alive if they are not elect just makes things worse for them.
Riiiiiiight. So by this logic a good Calvinist should just kill everyone immediately, because if they're elect it gets them straight to heaven without having to go through all the potential suffering here on earth, and if they're not elect it makes for a less painful hell.

However, God's told us not to murder people, so according to the logic above, he's actually only keeping us all on earth so that the eventual end of the not-elect is worse.

I didn't post this to take the mickey. Please show me where I'm wrong. If I was a Calvinist I'd also be a Universalist.
 
Posted by Custard123 (# 5402) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
You don't find it inherently wrong, then - just going beyond your authority?
Correct. Well, not just going beyond my authority, also going against God's.

Why do you think killing is wrong?
 
Posted by Custard123 (# 5402) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
quote:
Originally posted by Custard123:
Not the answer I'd give (I'm a Christian who thinks that Calvin was generally right, but don't like being called a Calvinist).
Sorry, you've lost me. Why not?
Because I aim to follow Christ, not Calvin. Calvin is fallible, Christ isn't.

quote:
quote:
Also, the Bible does suggest different nastinesses of hell, based on opportunity (Mt 11:22), so you could argue that keeping them alive if they are not elect just makes things worse for them.
Riiiiiiight. So by this logic a good Calvinist should just kill everyone immediately, because if they're elect it gets them straight to heaven without having to go through all the potential suffering here on earth, and if they're not elect it makes for a less painful hell.

However, God's told us not to murder people, so according to the logic above, he's actually only keeping us all on earth so that the eventual end of the not-elect is worse.
He's keeping us all on earth so that the full number of the elect can be brought in / so that more people can have a chance to come to repentance. (2 Peter 3:9, et al)

[ 09. July 2004, 10:19: Message edited by: Custard123 ]
 
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
I didn't post this to take the mickey. Please show me where I'm wrong. If I was a Calvinist I'd also be a Universalist.
I'm of the same view. And, ironically, it is actually my belief in free will that prevents me from believing in universal salvation (although I do believe in universal prevenient grace).
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
it reminds me of that horrid chorus "This is the day that the Lord has made"...
I once indavertantly taught this chorus to my cockatiel. He then proceeeded to sing it incessantly. When he was excited, he would stick on the loudest notes and repeat them over and over again.

We gave the bird away. [Biased]
 
Posted by Esmeralda (# 582) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
The other point is of course that they were occupying the Holy Land, and defiling it with their idolatries.
No they weren't - it didn't become the Holy Land until the Holy (or chosen) People were in it. And we do not have a Holy Land today; we have (again) a holy people, 'of all tongues and nations', gathered around the anointed one.
To define the land as holy in perpetuity, is to feed the worst of Christian Zionism, and encourage a new genocide: that of the Palestinians (and worse, carried out by the very people who endured the Holocaust).
This is why I am deeply concerned about this issue: the moment we try to treat the OT genocides as in some way starightforwardly applicable to us today, we lay ourselves open to drawing some quite horrendous conclusions about the same dispute, between the same peoples, over the same land, which still continues. Please don't tell me you believe all the Palestinians should be driven out by today's Israelis. And please don't mention suicide bombs: the Israeli death toll over the last month was 19, the Palestinian was 111 (which included children, just as the Israeli one did).
 
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Custard123:
He's keeping us all on earth so that the full number of the elect can be brought in / so that more people can have a chance to come to repentance. (2 Peter 3:9, et al)
Yes, I was hoping someone would use this proof-text.

I thought the point of Calvinism was that you don't actually have a chance? You either come to repentance or not, according to God's direct choice through nothing you can effect, made before creation.

So as I said, if I believed we have no free will that can affect our salvation, and God wants all to come to repentance (which is what 2 Peter actually says), I would be a Universalist.
 
Posted by Custard123 (# 5402) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Esmeralda:
No they weren't - it didn't become the Holy Land until the Holy (or chosen) People were in it.
Not sure the land was ever holy. But it was promised to Abraham way back, and the Canaanites were defiling it with their idolatries.

quote:

And we do not have a Holy Land today; we have (again) a holy people, 'of all tongues and nations', gathered around the anointed one.
To define the land as holy in perpetuity, is to feed the worst of Christian Zionism, and encourage a new genocide: that of the Palestinians (and worse, carried out by the very people who endured the Holocaust).
This is why I am deeply concerned about this issue: the moment we try to treat the OT genocides as in some way starightforwardly applicable to us today, we lay ourselves open to drawing some quite horrendous conclusions about the same dispute, between the same peoples, over the same land, which still continues. Please don't tell me you believe all the Palestinians should be driven out by today's Israelis. And please don't mention suicide bombs: the Israeli death toll over the last month was 19, the Palestinian was 111 (which included children, just as the Israeli one did).
completely agree about the inapplicability of the "Holy Land" idea to Israel / Palestine today, though might disgress over politics there.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Custard123:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
You don't find it inherently wrong, then - just going beyond your authority?
Correct. Well, not just going beyond my authority, also going against God's.

Why do you think killing is wrong?
It violates the Golden Rule. Possibly that's just another way of saying "Goddammit, it's just WRONG!", but it'll do for me.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
On the one hand, we have "people like me" who say that God is a God who is always life-giving and who never condones murder or genocide....
On the other hand, we have people who believe that "what God is really like" is inerrantly interpreted in biblical narrative;...
So I still don't see how we get out of the epistemological circle.
It gets us out of the circle because it assumes an inerrant Bible, revealed by God - AND - a God who is always life-giving and who never condones murder or genocide.

The key to getting out of the circle is to realize that the Biblical descriptions are sometimes simplified versions of how the event appeared - and how it would have appeared to you and me if we had been there. The Amorite kings attack and hailstones fall on them, the Egyptian king refuses to "let My people go" and plagues break out. Moses and Joshua speak with God, receive His commands and explanations and obey Him. The actual truth behind what really happened is much more complex.

For example. Do you really think that Moses spoke with God Himself? Is God Himself an individual with a white beard that would have had the kind of conversations Moses is recorded as having?

Both Moses and Abraham succesfully argued and bargained with God, if the text is to be accepted at face value. Would this have been the Father, the Son or the Holy Spirit? Surely this is impossible. No one can speak with the Father, and I doubt that anyone would accept that the Son or the Holy Spirit would have said the kind of things that Jehovah is reported to have said.

A much better explanation is that in the Old Testament an angel or spirit spoke for Jehovah, appearing usually as the "Angel of Jehovah" or often simply as "Jehovah." Often both terms are used in the same story, as when the "three men" visit Abraham in Genesis 18. This angel or spirit presented himself as God, and gave commands that appeared to be from God Himself. This was permitted by God as a means of leading Israel, and preparing them for the Incarnation.

But what the angel or spirit said would not always literally have been the best thing, or in actual accord with the will of God. Instead, God permitted it, as He permits many things, for the sake of a greater good, according to the freedom of the people involved.

So Joshua was commanded to destroy everyone in Jericho and Ai, and he did. This was an evil act, not actually commanded by God Himself, but permitted by Him because it represented something very good, namely the destruction of evil. The biblical account, therefore, is about God's destruction of wickedness, and the promotion of peace on earth. The literal story, however, describes a much less happy event.

This may not be a satisfactory way of getting us out of the epistemological circle for everyone, but it works for me. The Bible is holy and true, revealed by God. But that God is love itself, and everything in the Bible is for the sake of the long run happiness and peace of the human race.

I guess the hardest part is accepting that any interpretation of biblical descriptions is justified. This may be a sticking point, but I think that if you can get past it you can reconcile these two epistemological camps.

God is good. The Bible is holy and true. A Christian must maintain both of these - in my opinion. [Biased]
 
Posted by Sean D (# 2271) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Custard123:
Why do you think killing is wrong?
Because God says so. It's one of the ten commandments (the tired and inaccurate distinction between murder and kill is inadmissable).

[ 09. July 2004, 11:29: Message edited by: Sean D ]
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Esmeralda:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
The other point is of course that they were occupying the Holy Land, and defiling it with their idolatries.
No they weren't - it didn't become the Holy Land until the Holy (or chosen) People were in it. And we do not have a Holy Land today; we have (again) a holy people, 'of all tongues and nations', gathered around the anointed one.
Actually, I'm coming from a different perspective completely.

The land actually was holy, but it is not holy anymore. After the Incarnation everything changed.

The land was holy, according to my church, because this was where the people lived who are described as "Adam and Eve." It was therefore the site of the "Garden of Eden." This was not an actual garden, nor were Adam and Eve actual individuals. It was an era of the human race, very early in human history, known as the Golden Age. It was centered in the Levant and spread out from there.

The reason that this made the land holy was that these people were in close communion with angels, and the angels therefore became associated with the places in that land. The actual names themselves of those places were given from heaven. They are preserved in the Bible. This made the land holy because the angels were associated with the names and their meanings.

This is why it was so important for Israel to occupy that land, and for idolaters to be removed from it. This is what the symbolism is about.

All of the meanings, however, were about the work of salvation that the Christ would accomplish. When He came into the world and fulfilled the prophecies, the symbolism faded away and is no longer applicable. This is also why the ritual worship of the Old Testament, and all its arcane ritual laws, were abrogated when the Lord came.

So don't worry. I am not using this idea as a justification for anything current happening in Israel. As far as I am concerned there is no longer anything holy about it, other than the normal respect and reverence we give places because of their history.

Still, it was holy. This explains many things that happened there. [Angel]
 
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
On the one hand, we have "people like me" who say that God is a God who is always life-giving and who never condones murder or genocide....
On the other hand, we have people who believe that "what God is really like" is inerrantly interpreted in biblical narrative;...
So I still don't see how we get out of the epistemological circle.
It gets us out of the circle because it assumes an inerrant Bible, revealed by God - AND - a God who is always life-giving and who never condones murder or genocide.

The key to getting out of the circle is to realize that the Biblical descriptions are sometimes simplified versions of how the event appeared....
Freddy, sorry, this really doesn't do it for me. I think you and I mean very different things by "inerrant" and it actually appears that your methodology of interpreting the bible is more - I'm not sure what the word is - "free-flowing" than my own methodology. And I assure you that I qualify as a "liberal" in most circles I've been in.

What I mean by "inerrant" is basically imposing a concrete, modernist, possibly logical-positivist view on the bible. So, if the text says "God willed the XYZs to die", that's it, end of story, absolutely no room whatsoever for questioning. The bible says it; God willed it; I believe it; end of conversation. I don't see any way to posit a God who always condemns genocide other than to step out of that sort of hermeneutic. Which "stepping out of inerrancy" is the method I use and which is the method I think you also just used (although I don't agree with the specifics of what you said).
 
Posted by Tuggboat (# 7001) on :
 
The Bible is what it is and says what it says. It Holy and His word. You can all go chuck it out the window if you want but your probably tossing out God with it.

Note the last verse:
Rom 2:11-16

11 For there is no respect of persons with God.

12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;

13(For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)

16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.
KJV
 
Posted by Sean D (# 2271) on :
 
Thanks Tuggboat. In making some completely unsubstantiated and wholly controversial assertions and in quoting a completely irrelevant passage of Scripture you have really helped to clarify matters and clear the whole mess up. Thanks for your contribution.
 
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tuggboat:
The Bible is what it is and says what it says. It Holy and His word. You can all go chuck it out the window if you want but your probably tossing out God with it.
I was about to exercise my gift of prophecy and predict that TB would receive a not altogether friendly rejoinder to this remark.
And there it was fulfilled before I could even type it.

I am wonderful. [Cool]
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
Freddy, sorry, this really doesn't do it for me. I think you and I mean very different things by "inerrant" and it actually appears that your methodology of interpreting the bible is more - I'm not sure what the word is - "free-flowing" than my own methodology.
I see what you mean. Then the only way to reconcile the passages is to posit that the Bible is not inerrant. This makes sense, but in my opinion it leaves a person more at sea than the method I described.
quote:
Originally posted by Tuggboat:
The Bible is what it is and says what it says. It Holy and His word. You can all go chuck it out the window if you want but your probably tossing out God with it.
It is holy and the Word of God, but you need to have some way to reconcile its internal contradictions. Do you simply deny that these exist? Or are they just beyond human understanding?
 
Posted by Little Weed (# 4402) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Liberal rationalists always have a very uphill dialectical struggle. Their antithesis to squaring the circle of THE KILLER GOD OF THE OT vs. Gentle Jesus Meek and Mild is wrought, riven with a plethora of problems about the nature of God just as the conservative Biblical synthesis that reveals Him as both. More so I perceive.
I don’t know whether I fall into the liberal rationalist camp because all I’m trying to do, believe it or not, is to understand the nature of God as revealed in the whole of the bible, but I take great exception to your caricature.

First, an unbelievable amount of damage has been done, in my view, by the phrase Gentle Jesus Meek and Mild. It’s a sentimental Victorian distortion and IMO should never be part of a Christian’s vocabulary. On a suggested religious advert recently, set against a close-up of a bloody, dirty, Jesus wearing a crown of thorns and the words “Gentle Jesus, meek and mild?” it said, “Yeah, right.”

Love is the toughest, hardest, strongest most durable thing in the world. It is pain and sacrifice and grief and agony but I have faith in the God finally revealed in Jesus which teaches me that love will always triumph over might. I have to read the OT in the light of that. I have no option.

Let’s look at Joshua again and assume that, for once, love was powerless and the best and most Godly option was violence. Where did it get the chosen people? If you turn the page from Joshua to Judges the answer is not very far at all. As Ken pointed out earlier, the people they fought weren’t actually wiped out so God apparently failed. And what’s more, a couple of generations further on and the chosen people are still worshipping foreign gods and losing battles. It’s a disaster.

Throughout history man has thought that just one more war will end all wars. One more exercise of military power and we will be free to live in peace. It doesn’t work. Killing not only causes pain, suffering and grief to the victim and their family, it brutalises us who kill. Look at the world. Isn’t it staring us in the face?

It’s a terrible irony that the very words written in the OT and attributed to God are stopping us accepting the true revelation of God. Of course Joshua said God told him to do all those things. It’s one of the chief characteristics of Judaism that it sets out rules for everything, absolutely everything, that a Jew does. It thoroughly integrates religion and every aspect of life. If you are doing what you believe is the right thing it must be God’s will.

Yet if we take it that this truly was the will of God, to see your enemies not as real people, not even as individuals, but a race totally apart from God and unredeemable by him because they weren’t the chosen people but collectively responsible because they were the enemy, all sorts of consequences result in the world today, as Esmerelda pointed out. It scares me witless.

And the result for me personally is that I am being told that love does not win. That God, and that means Jesus (althought the trinitarian nature of God has seemed to keep disappearing in this discussion at times), is nasty, racist, unpredictable and ultimately violent, that his love is ultimately limited. That sounds to me like human beings, not God.
 
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tuggboat:
The Bible is what it is and says what it says. It Holy and His word. You can all go chuck it out the window if you want but your probably tossing out God with it.
Now, that's what I was talking about. [Razz]

I think we're actually at risk of straying into dead horse territory here if we start debating inerrancy.

Can I just point out that I'm middle-aged and I've heard that "You're throwing the bible out the window and God with it" comment more times than I could count. Having grown up in an inerrant church, I've been publically rebuked in front of people I cared about and I'd be a millionaire if I had a dollar or a pound for every time someone has said that to me. You may genuinely believe it's "throwing God out the window" but hurling insults at people isn't the best tactic if one is trying to make a case for one's own view. Thank you.
 
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
Freddy, sorry, this really doesn't do it for me. I think you and I mean very different things by "inerrant" and it actually appears that your methodology of interpreting the bible is more - I'm not sure what the word is - "free-flowing" than my own methodology.
I see what you mean. Then the only way to reconcile the passages is to posit that the Bible is not inerrant. This makes sense, but in my opinion it leaves a person more at sea than the method I described.
We're possibly at risk of going off on a wild tangent - one of my favourite past-times - but I really don't follow you on this one. OK, look, I don't mean this as an insult, I honestly don't, but to me the interpretation you posited was a lot more "liberal", a lot more "non-inerrant" than my own. (Although I have to confess to having absolutely no knowledge of your tradition, which I suspect is inhibiting our communication here.) So it's hard to see where you're coming from. Would it be possible to try a different angle so I can see where you're coming from?
 
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Little Weed:
I don’t know whether I fall into the liberal rationalist camp because all I’m trying to do, believe it or not, is to understand the nature of God as revealed in the whole of the bible, but I take great exception to your caricature.
I don't think most non-inerrant Christians are liberal rationalists, although of course, there will be some people around who still are.

quote:
First, an unbelievable amount of damage has been done, in my view, by the phrase Gentle Jesus Meek and Mild. It’s a sentimental Victorian distortion and IMO should never be part of a Christian’s vocabulary. On a suggested religious advert recently, set against a close-up of a bloody, dirty, Jesus wearing a crown of thorns and the words “Gentle Jesus, meek and mild?” it said, “Yeah, right.”

Love is the toughest, hardest, strongest most durable thing in the world. It is pain and sacrifice and grief and agony but I have faith in the God finally revealed in Jesus which teaches me that love will always triumph over might. I have to read the OT in the light of that. I have no option.
Amen, preach it!

Tarnation, I am so tired of asking for the grace to love people who I'd rather not love only to have others imply that the only reason I believe in love and forgiveness is because I want an excuse for my failings and I don't want to try hard enough and don't want rules to follow. [Help]

[ 09. July 2004, 13:33: Message edited by: Seeker963 ]
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
OK, look, I don't mean this as an insult, I honestly don't, but to me the interpretation you posited was a lot more "liberal", a lot more "non-inerrant" than my own....Would it be possible to try a different angle so I can see where you're coming from?
That might be good, because I call my position "conservative" and "inerrant." [Biased]

I'm coming from the idea that the Bible is directly revealed by God and is the holy Word of God.

But, as I understand it, its holiness lies in a spiritual understanding of what it is really about, namely God's salvation of the human race, and the life of love and charity that each individual is called to live, refraining from evil and doing God's will.

This is therefore always the real topic, regardless of what the literal text appears to be about. The literal text is often a series of metaphors. The metaphors, however, do not mean that the literal text is inaccurate. These things really happened. It was important that they actually happen since the events themselves had incredibly powerful metaphoric or symbolic value. This power is why so many of the events are actual miracles. The miracles really happened.

I don't want to stray into dead horses territory here. The point of explaining this is to show that this makes it possible to reconcile a God of love with what God commanded Joshua to do.

This works in my tradition because there are good, biblically consistent, explanations of how the metaphors work and why they work that way. Without those explanations, however, I can see why you would call this a "liberal" or "non-inerrantist" explanation.

So the genocide was evil, but it symbolized something good, namely the destruction of evil. This is completely self-contradictory, but it is nevertheless how Christians have understood it from the very beginning. It is the basis of the common history that many religions have of wanting to "destroy the infidels."

A modern understanding, however, won't tolerate that contradiction - so it needs to be explained and reconciled. That's what this discussion is about. [Angel]
 
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
It gets us out of the circle because it assumes an inerrant Bible, revealed by God - AND - a God who is always life-giving and who never condones murder or genocide.
But it doesn't, because the bible says, plain as day, that.... etc.

I hear the ghostly sound of a horse neighing, but you're actually saying that sometimes when the bible says God did something, what it actually means is something else. This is not inerrancy.

Denying inerrancy is not the same thing as denying the truth found in Scripture.
 
Posted by Ddraig (# 7572) on :
 
Freddy, is there somewhere I can read more about this approach to the Bible? I think I get it, but I'm not sure.......

Liz
 
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
I'm coming from the idea that the Bible is directly revealed by God and is the holy Word of God.

But, as I understand it, its holiness lies in a spiritual understanding of what it is really about, namely God's salvation of the human race, and the life of love and charity that each individual is called to live, refraining from evil and doing God's will.

This is therefore always the real topic, regardless of what the literal text appears to be about.
Up until this point, methodologically, I'm in 100% agreement with you. And, personally, I don't think this is the way the word "inerrant" would be used by very conservative Protestants (IOW, the environment in which I grew up). You can call it "inerrant" if you like, but I just need to know what you mean by the word in contrast to what I mean by the word.

quote:
The literal text is often a series of metaphors. The metaphors, however, do not mean that the literal text is inaccurate. These things really happened. It was important that they actually happen since the events themselves had incredibly powerful metaphoric or symbolic value. This power is why so many of the events are actual miracles. The miracles really happened.
I don't really "get" your use of the concept of metaphor here. Let's take an example. Are you saying that, for example, the Exodus really happened but that it happened because God wanted the people of Israel to have a metaphor for "God brings his people out of slavery"?

I'd say something more like "God brought his people out of slavery and, in this act, Israel experienced God as a saviour." I'm wondering if we're actually saying the same thing (because I'd not use the word or concept of "metaphor")?

quote:
I don't want to stray into dead horses territory here. The point of explaining this is to show that this makes it possible to reconcile a God of love with what God commanded Joshua to do.
I believe it's possible to reconcile a God of love with what God commanded Joshua to do. I believe the Old Testament God and the New Testament God were the same God. I've said this before. I just don't think one can do it if one takes the proposition "If the text says it was God's will that a people died, then we know for certain it was God's will a people died."

quote:
This works in my tradition because there are good, biblically consistent, explanations of how the metaphors work and why they work that way.
Which only leaves me with the small problem that I have not got your tradition's texts, nor would I want to wholeheartedly adopt them. (No offence intended.)

quote:
So the genocide was evil, but it symbolized something good, namely the destruction of evil.
Ah, this is where I'd differ. I'd say that the genocide was simply wrong and it was a case of the victors writing history ("They must have been evil or our God would not have allowed us to annhilate them").

quote:
This is completely self-contradictory, but it is nevertheless how Christians have understood it from the very beginning. It is the basis of the common history that many religions have of wanting to "destroy the infidels."

A modern understanding, however, won't tolerate that contradiction - so it needs to be explained and reconciled. That's what this discussion is about. [Angel]
I'm actually very close to agreeing with you, but I don't quite, although we're coming from very similar positions.

I agree with you (if I'm interpreting you correctly) that the original narratives were not written by modernists. I agree that this is the problem with inerrantism - is that it assumes that the original writers understood life the universe and everything the way modernists do. However, I'm guessing (and I don't mean to tell you what you think, so please "push back") that a difference between you and me is that I'm actually trying to speak in modernist language because that is the language most of us still speak in - even if we claim to be post-modernists.

So, in modernist language, your methodology puts together two things that I would separate.
1) At an "objective" level - VERY modernist - I'd say "genocide is always wrong".
2) At a "devotional level", I'd say that we can certainly learn the lesson (amongst others) that "God ultimately destroys evil"
What I don't personally believe is that God ordered Israel to destroy an entire people for the sole purpose of giving us the metaphor "God hates evil".
 
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
Denying inerrancy is not the same thing as denying the truth found in Scripture.
Which is what how I'd put my position. I deny inerrancy, but I don't deny scripture's inspiration by the Holy Spirit.

I do think Freddy's meaning something more nuanced between the two things, though. I really do want to understand what he's thinking and I'd hate to get thrown into Dead Horse territory just because I'm trying to understand what he's saying.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ddraig:
Freddy, is there somewhere I can read more about this approach to the Bible?
Here is a nice Australian site about this.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
I don't really "get" your use of the concept of metaphor here. Let's take an example. Are you saying that, for example, the Exodus really happened but that it happened because God wanted the people of Israel to have a metaphor for "God brings his people out of slavery"?

I'd say something more like "God brought his people out of slavery and, in this act, Israel experienced God as a saviour." I'm wondering if we're actually saying the same thing (because I'd not use the word or concept of "metaphor")?
The way I would put it is that God works to lead everyone out of spiritual slavery. The exact way that He does this is spiritually illustrated by what happened to Israel in Egypt. Israel's liberation is therefore a metaphor for our own liberation, or for the liberation that Christ accomplished.

What that means so far as what actually happened to Israel is that spiritual forces worked to liberate Israel because of what this people symbolized. Therefore the Egyptians were struck with plagues - not by God, but because their opposition to Israel removed the angelic protections that people normally have.

Anyway, I do see that I mostly agree with you. Except where you say:
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
I'd say that the genocide was simply wrong and it was a case of the victors writing history ("They must have been evil or our God would not have allowed us to annhilate them").
While I agree that this was the victors writing history, I think that this writing was inspired by God to be written just as it was, and that it is a true description, at least from their point of view.

One reason that it needed to take this form was so that it would be freely accepted, loved, honored, and preserved as the Word of God. It is very curious that the people would have preserved such a "warts-and-all" account - but it was surely provided by God that it happen.
 
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
Freddy, I think I understand better what you're saying. For me, we're not really on the same page because I'd see your version as over-spiritualised in the same way that I see some of Augustine's interpretations (e.g. of the Good Samaritan) of the bible as being over-spiritualised.

I agree that there are a lot of metaphorical lessons we can learn from the bible, but I don't think that historical events happened for metaphorical purposes.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
I agree that there are a lot of metaphorical lessons we can learn from the bible, but I don't think that historical events happened for metaphorical purposes.
I think your assessment of the way I see it is correct.

Just to be clear, I don't think that God caused the historical events to happen for metaphorical purposes. Rather, God worked with human freedom to bring something good out of the evil of the times.

This does mean that He guided events, but it does not mean that He in any way caused genocide. His whole purpose was to prevent genocide and guide the human race in such a way as to bring about long term peace. His overall methods are primarily to teach the truth, but they also include many other things that we call Divine Providence.

The clinker, of course, is human freedom. If this were not an issue none of this would have happened in the first place - as has been the subject of many threads.
 
Posted by Tuggboat (# 7001) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sean D:
Thanks Tuggboat. In making some completely unsubstantiated and wholly controversial assertions and in quoting a completely irrelevant passage of Scripture you have really helped to clarify matters and clear the whole mess up. Thanks for your contribution.
I of course didn't think it was irrelevant.
[Smile]
I substantiated my assertion with scripture.

As far as controversial goes, once I read it in scripture I quit arguing and put it to rest. What that scripture does for me is that it puts the whole problem of how will the unsaved (present, past, Jewish, gentile, elect and nonelect and whatever other execptions to God's judgement we conjure up including those with arguments against God's Word) be judged.

So whether we like it or not we will be judged. Now after we're judged I can't find where the wicked sinners will get a condo on the shore of the River of Life.

Perhaps it's in some man made sin inspired book but I steer away from more than a mere glossing over heresies. And that includes all books that lead me to believe its alright to sin. They are in error.

[ 09. July 2004, 17:46: Message edited by: Tuggboat ]
 
Posted by Tuggboat (# 7001) on :
 
I studied a piece on Jewish poetry. It was real interesting and one thing it gave me was the leniancy to take pieces of scripture in a looser sense than strictly literal. There are pieces of old Jewish poetry that somewhat soften my literalist viewpoint in Joshua.
Heres one:

Josh 10:12-13

12 On the day the LORD gave the Amorites over to Israel, Joshua said to the LORD in the presence of Israel:

"O sun, stand still over Gibeon,
O moon, over the Valley of Aijalon."
13 So the sun stood still,
and the moon stopped,
till the nation avenged itself on its enemies,

as it is written in the Book of Jashar.
(from New International Version)

In this translation it stands out by the quotes and indents.
Whenever I read poetry I allow myself to enjoy a broader view and understanding of the scripture.

As far as inerrancy I "do" believe it in its original texts was inerrant but our translations and recopying have introduced some error. Whenever something is repeated though thoughout the Bible I interpret my resistance to it as an opportunity to grow in understanding. Not proof that it is wrong.

I see this whole topic of whether God can be angry repeated dozens of times in the Old Testament. Something happened though. He forgave us. The Nt doesn't speak of his anger but his judgment still scares me into rightousness. Fear is the beginning of so much afterall. Just look in a concordance in Proverbs.

I would have posted some but I find all this resistance to the Bible quite puzzling on a religous site. The unsaved seem to have more reverence for it. They may yell and scream and fight but very few argue with it and its authority.
It often brings peace that there is some solid truth they can hold onto instead of all the unwieldy beliefs they have grasped and discarded over the years. Often it transforms where no argument can.
 
Posted by Custard123 (# 5402) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Custard123:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
You don't find it inherently wrong, then - just going beyond your authority?
Correct. Well, not just going beyond my authority, also going against God's.

Why do you think killing is wrong?
It violates the Golden Rule. Possibly that's just another way of saying "Goddammit, it's just WRONG!", but it'll do for me.
So why do you believe the Golden Rule? I believe it because Jesus says so.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
Custard - I know what you're trying to do. Back me into saying "because it seems right".

Okay then - "because it seems right".

You can call that as subjective as you like, but when I'm asked to see a genocide as right and just because God says it is, I feel very much like Winston in 1984:

quote:
"How many fingers am I holding up, Winston?"
"Four"
"And if the party says that it is not four but five - then how many?"
"Four"
The word ended with a gasp of pain
.
.
.
"You are a slow learner, Winston" said O'Brien gently.
"How can I help it?" he blubbered. "How can I help seeing what is in front of my eyes? Two and two are four."
That's how it makes me feel. Evil is evil. Any idiot can tell you that murder is evil. That genocide is evil. It doesn't need a God to tell you that, any more than you need a maths book to know that two and two are four. And it is just as barmy to try to persuade me otherwise.

[ 09. July 2004, 19:46: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
 
Posted by ONUnicorn (# 7331) on :
 
Originally posted by Esmeralda:

quote:
Yes, actually, it was entirely and unequivocally wrong. It's exactly the other way around. The contraction of it is, is it's, with apostrophe. Its without apostrophe is the genitive, meaning belonging to it. Common sense tells us that the apostrophe is used to indicate what is missed out, in this case the 'i' of 'is'.
Okay, maybe I wasn't clear in my retelling of the story...

Always before my Junior year of University, I had understood "it is" to be contracted as "it's". Then I took an English class with a professor who absolutely insisted that "it's" was wrong - whatever the context. He insisted "it is" should be shortened to "its" and would circle all instances of "it's" in bright red ink and take five points off for every instance of said usage. Other students pointed out that all accepted style manuals say "it's" is an accepted contraction for "it is" but it was his mission in life to stamp out "it's".

Said 30-page thesis was for a different teacher, but I was still in that mind set (still am to some extent... seeing as I had that prof for 2 writing-intensive classes).

At any rate, the point I was trying to make was not a grammatical one. God made, and is still making, this world. It is his work of art. Just as it is not immoral for me to smite the apostrophe in the paper I have written, so it is not immoral for God to smite people. On the other hand, when the paper alters itself (as often happens if one is using Microsoft Word) then it becomes something other then what I want, and I have every right to be mad at it. Likewise, when humans smite each other of their own will, it is wrong. Yet I can tell the computer to smite the apostrophe for me, and when it obeys me it is not wrong. Likewise, God can tell the Israelites to remove the Canaanite and, were they to obey him (which it is important to note that they didn’t ) it would not be wrong.

I think there are several different questions being asked here on this thread on Biblical genocide, and it gets confusing when everyone is taking a different approach to the topic.

1. Does the Bible say that God ordered what modern humans would consider genocide?

2. Did God order genocide?

3. If the Bible says that God ordered genocide, and God didn’t order genocide, then how can we believe the Bible?

4. If God did order genocide, then how does that mesh with the idea of a loving God?

5. Do we even need the Old Testament?
6. Are the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament the same?

7. What reasons would God have for ordering genocide in that specific historical instance?

8. If we believe that God did order genocide in that specific historical instance, how can we know he won’t do so again?

9. If God did order genocide, did he have the right to?

10. What is love?

11. Is “This is the day” a stupid song?

12. Why aren’t there any avatars of unicorns or psyducks?

And more... this list goes on and is endless. My point dealt with questions 7 and 9. I haven’t even touched on most of the other questions (#12 was added as a joke, as was #11... but I have touched on 12).

There’s more I want to say but I haven’t the time at the moment.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
Good list ONUnicorn!

One thing I would add is:

Is it reasonable for humans to expect God to act consistently?
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
Seeker963 - No and no. Liberal rationalism squares the circle - always if this site is anything to go by - by rationalizing away the killer God of the OT as our - as Israel - failed, distorted response to His self-disclosure to us.

I find your caricature of my caricature more of a caricature than I find mine.
 
Posted by Esmeralda (# 582) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ONUnicorn:
Okay, maybe I wasn't clear in my retelling of the story...

Always before my Junior year of University, I had understood "it is" to be contracted as "it's". Then I took an English class with a professor who absolutely insisted that "it's" was wrong - whatever the context. He insisted "it is" should be shortened to "its" and would circle all instances of "it's" in bright red ink and take five points off for every instance of said usage. Other students pointed out that all accepted style manuals say "it's" is an accepted contraction for "it is" but it was his mission in life to stamp out "it's".
Your professor was wrong. Seriously wrong.

quote:
At any rate, the point I was trying to make was not a grammatical one. God made, and is still making, this world. It is his work of art. Just as it is not immoral for me to smite the apostrophe in the paper I have written, so it is not immoral for God to smite people.
There's just a small flaw in your argument, though. An apostrophe is a stroke on a page. A human being is a sentient, conscious, intelligent, feeling being. Smiting apostrophes does not hurt them. Smiting people, on the other hand....
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
I don't doubt your sincerity, your faith, your journey, Little Weed. And I retract nothing. It's no caricature. Liberal rationalism utterly fails dialectically, utterly fails to be confronted by God as He is revealed, as He reveals Himself without patronization: killer saviour. Cannot deal with Him at all. So does my pathetic humanity in many, many less worthy ways.
 
Posted by Peppone (# 3855) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tuggboat:
And that includes all books that lead me to believe its alright to sin. They are in error.
And what are genocide, infanticide? Morally neutral acts?

Here's a question, then, and not a rhetorical one. If you believed that God was telling you to destroy a pagan people- or maybe just one family- mother, father, maybe two kids- would you do it?

[ 10. July 2004, 00:59: Message edited by: Peppone ]
 
Posted by Tuggboat (# 7001) on :
 
quote:
It is holy and the Word of God, but you need to have some way to reconcile its internal contradictions. Do you simply deny that these exist? Or are they just beyond human understanding?
Freddy,
There are more than a few places I admit it is beyond my understanding. In fact without asking the Holy Spirit to teach and reveal the Word to me its almost all beyond me. I don't deny them though my simple faith may make it appear that way sometimes. I just don't argue with them in my mind. Instead I accept understanding as a gift, it is a reward on this Earth If I remember correctly for rightousness. It has its beginnings in Fear of the Lord. Its not of me or any teaching of men. I believe the Bible can explain and define itself also though I'm not sure this statement or anything like it is in the Bible I have found it to be true so far. The other assertions I just made are in there but I can't remember where.
 
Posted by Tuggboat (# 7001) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Peppone:
quote:
Originally posted by Tuggboat:
And that includes all books that lead me to believe its alright to sin. They are in error.
And what are genocide, infanticide? Morally neutral acts?

Here's a question, then, and not a rhetorical one. If you believed that God was telling you to destroy a pagan people- or maybe just one family- mother, father, maybe two kids- would you do it?
We must not put our own moral sense ahead of God's moral sense or he is not our God.

I have prayed many times that God use me in any manner he wills and but if it be his will, that he not use me in any manner that brings harm to others today.

I accept that someday he might at great personal cost to me.

I have a question for you Peppone, Would you defy him? I mean if you were really sure it was him and not some insanity or mental ambiguity in your head. If you asked for confirmation and received it multiple times. If you did all the things you personally do to test a thought to see if its Gods's will or yours, assuming of course you do this. If after say a year of this and you were still sure. Would you defy him, would you deny him? Or would you be like Abraham and walk up that mountain in faith with even your own son (infanticide?). Would you give it all for him even if it meant persecution even unto execution or life imprisonment. Would you die for him as he died for you.

Soldiers around the world do this every day for men not God. They face many of the the same penalties and they answers yes but how many would do it for God. What is war except another failed attempt at (genocide?). Look at the American Indian, The Holocaust, Turkey, Cambodia, Tibet, & Bosnia, Stalins purges.

But war is different. IT IS NOT genocide
Not only do people do this basicly at gunpoint, many volunteer to "defend" their country. But you see, war and genocide are different they feel different. The genocide that we find abominable is the kind that is internal to its own country. Stalin killed his own people, Hitler killed his own Jews. People that were once neighbors and friends turned on them. Thats why these atrocities make us sick. Its not just the killing. They were defenseless minorities. even after they fled they were hunted down. The first card sorters were used to methodicly eradicate them. In most cases genocide was accomplished by starvation not the sword.


It would be hard for me to starve someone to death and think it was God's will.
 
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Peppone:
quote:
Originally posted by Tuggboat:
And that includes all books that lead me to believe its alright to sin. They are in error.
And what are genocide, infanticide? Morally neutral acts?

Here's a question, then, and not a rhetorical one. If you believed that God was telling you to destroy a pagan people- or maybe just one family- mother, father, maybe two kids- would you do it?
Of course the traditional answer of the church has been that it can be right to do so - which is when it got involved in the Inquisition and civil wars for the faith (it's not just a bad habit of the Catholics!). I think I would argue now that it is not the role of the church, or of any of its members, to do that, on the grounds that there is the kingdom of Jesus is 'not of this world' so that it is the responsibility of the state in this age to punish, not the church.

So my answer is that God will not tell me to do a thing like that - and if I thought He was, I would reject it as 'false prophecy'. But only for the reasons above, not because it is 'inherently wrong'.

(PS - this logic applies even to someone like Hitler, and I remain commited to the belief that Bonhoffer was wrong in his attempt to kill him.)
[edited to add PS]

[ 10. July 2004, 08:21: Message edited by: Ender's Shadow ]
 
Posted by Cheesy* (# 3330) on :
 
My conscience says that genocide is a terrible thing. No amount of convincing from any deity is going make me change my mind.

If God's morals are not 'better' than mine, then he is not worth knowing. Frankly, if I hear God telling me otherwise, I either need to see a health professional or turn my back on him.

C
 
Posted by Custard123 (# 5402) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Peppone:
Here's a question, then, and not a rhetorical one. If you believed that God was telling you to destroy a pagan people- or maybe just one family- mother, father, maybe two kids- would you do it?
No, because it would conflict with what the Bible teaches for how Christians should live. I would try, with God's help, to correct that wrong belief.
 
Posted by Peppone (# 3855) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tuggboat:

I have a question for you Peppone, Would you defy him?
I refer you to Cheesy's eminently sensible answer.

I would add that, given you worship a God whose purposes are unknowable and who might at any time order you to kill someone- well, don't ever find yourself in the unfortunate position of getting within a thousand metres of me or my family.
 
Posted by Peppone (# 3855) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tuggboat:
We must not put our own moral sense ahead of God's moral sense or he is not our God...

...It would be hard for me to starve someone to death and think it was God's will.
You're not as sure about this as you think you are, are you?

quote:

Would you die for him as he died for you.
Yes. As he died for me. In the same way as. As.
 
Posted by Custard123 (# 5402) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Cheesy*:
My conscience says that genocide is a terrible thing. No amount of convincing from any deity is going make me change my mind.

If God's morals are not 'better' than mine, then he is not worth knowing. Frankly, if I hear God telling me otherwise, I either need to see a health professional or turn my back on him.

C
By 'better', I take it you mean "the same".
 
Posted by Peppone (# 3855) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
quote:
Originally posted by Peppone:
Here's a question, then, and not a rhetorical one. If you believed that God was telling you to destroy a pagan people- or maybe just one family- mother, father, maybe two kids- would you do it?
it is the responsibility of the state in this age to punish, not the church.

The state should "punish" this hypothetical family for being pagans? They might need to be killed, but you're off the hook, because since the Incarnation, believers shouldn't have to soil thier hands with genocidal/ infanticidal tasks?

I can't work out who's in more of a mess over this, you or tuggboat.
 
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Seeker963 - No and no. Liberal rationalism squares the circle - always if this site is anything to go by - by rationalizing away the killer God of the OT as our - as Israel - failed, distorted response to His self-disclosure to us.

I find your caricature of my caricature more of a caricature than I find mine.
Heard and I really don't know what to say. You seem to be telling me and Little Weed and Cheesy, etc. what sort of God we believe in and what sort of logic we are employing. I don't think you have anything personal against me, but since I can't speak for Little Weed or for Cheesy or for "etc.", I have to speak for myself in the rest of this post.

I don't square the circle by saying that God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament are different gods. I don't believe in a soft and fluffy God. I don't believe in Gentle Jesus Meek and Mild. I believe that real love and real forgiveness are the most difficult things in the world and I'm, frankly, sick and tired of people telling me that they know for certain that my path is easy and my God is some kind of soft and fluffy overly permissive yuppie who doesn't want to discipline his children.

I also don't think we need a god - the real God or a false god - to tell us to punish by violence those we think have done us wrong, to punish by violence those who we think have the wrong beliefs or to punish by violence those who we do not like.

God save us from people who think that God is telling them to kill other civilisations - that's exactly the kind of narcisstic thinking that got the West into Iraq. Talk about Satan masquerading as Good. It's the ultimate deception. Satan does not tempt the faithful with "Hey, let's go out and do evil". Satan tempts the faithful by convincing them Evil is good.
 
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Peppone:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
quote:
Originally posted by Peppone:
Here's a question, then, and not a rhetorical one. If you believed that God was telling you to destroy a pagan people- or maybe just one family- mother, father, maybe two kids- would you do it?
it is the responsibility of the state in this age to punish, not the church.

The state should "punish" this hypothetical family for being pagans? They might need to be killed, but you're off the hook, because since the Incarnation, believers shouldn't have to soil thier hands with genocidal/ infanticidal tasks?

I can't work out who's in more of a mess over this, you or tuggboat.
Ah - ok - whoops... the logic that the kingdom of Jesus is not of this world leads to a rejection of the persecution of pagans for being pagans. There is no longer the same role of the state as the enforcer of a specific monotheism that is granted to the 'state' in the time of Israel. So - no - I'm not proposing that pagans should be punished by the state - though I sort of see how you could see that I was [Hot and Hormonal]
 
Posted by Peppone (# 3855) on :
 
Sorry, man. I shouldn't have just jumped on your post like that...anyway, clearer now...
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tuggboat:
Freddy:
quote:
It is holy and the Word of God, but you need to have some way to reconcile its internal contradictions. Do you simply deny that these exist? Or are they just beyond human understanding?
There are more than a few places I admit it is beyond my understanding. In fact without asking the Holy Spirit to teach and reveal the Word to me its almost all beyond me. I don't deny them though my simple faith may make it appear that way sometimes. I just don't argue with them in my mind.
This position is really fine with me. The point is that you believe in the Bible, you believe it to be true, you believe that it is written by God, and you believe that the way to peace is to hear and obey. I think this is the right way to go.

If everyone held this position I think that we would all be happy.

I don't really think that it is all that difficult to hold the contradictions together in your mind.

As Martin said:
quote:
Liberal rationalism utterly fails dialectically, utterly fails to be confronted by God as He is revealed, as He reveals Himself without patronization: killer saviour. Cannot deal with Him at all.
I doubt that traditional Christianity saw God as "killer saviour." Still, that is what this thread is about.

Interestingly, Abraham's name for Jehovah, which was "Shaddai", means "the one who both causes trouble and who delivers from trouble." In many ways this is the God we still worship.

Personally, I think that God as purely a God of love works much better and is more biblical than the "killer saviour" model.

But I also believe that the first priority is to believe in the Word of God. [Votive]
 
Posted by Tuggboat (# 7001) on :
 
quote:
Interestingly, Abraham's name for Jehovah, which was "Shaddai", means "the one who both causes trouble and who delivers from trouble." In many ways this is the God we still worship.
Yes it is a very tender nurturing name for God. All aspects of his personality are of course unknowable but this describes one who carried an infant nation at its conception through safely and lovingly. It is also a definition with some female aspects to it unlike other names for him. The core roots of the word suggest "many breasted one."

My God is also my Lord hence the willingness to obey. Do I obey from fear or Love. Both. Dependence, Yes. God is my shield and protector. It is a beautiful name God.

Does anybody think genocide and war are different? One is like protecting oneself and the other is like killing oneself but on a national and racial and/or political level. My God is my protector, my shield; loves and nurtures me. How could he tell me to turn on myself or my own kind. Those practicing real genocide make no claim to kill in the name of the Lord. They kill in the name of man. Hitler, Stalin, the leaders in Somalia and Crotia and Bosnia but none of these real genocides were done for the God I believe in because he doesn't do genocide.

But apparently he does do war. He does stir things up a bit. "There will be wars and rumors of war" We may protect ourselves. He will deliver us from trouble.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tuggboat:
Yes it is a very tender nurturing name for God. All aspects of his personality are of course unknowable but this describes one who carried an infant nation at its conception through safely and lovingly. It is also a definition with some female aspects to it unlike other names for him. The core roots of the word suggest "many breasted one."
Sorry, you lost me there. I meant that "Shaddai" was NOT a good name for God, since God does not cause trouble - and Israel was quickly divested of that name. I'm also not understanding where all the breasts come in. You mean the Hebrew word suggests that?

In any case, holy fear and the willingness to obey are good things. Keep it up.
 
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
I'm also not understanding where all the breasts come in.
You've lost me.
 
Posted by Tuggboat (# 7001) on :
 
spurious text It has been Masculine since the Septugent. Prior to that Rabbinical reference, the Targum noted the feminine aspects of words that sounded similar and speculated the Names very primitive roots had an approximate origin as I mentioned. Destroyer, mountain, she-day, almighty are among other translations I found.

šadday

As El Shaddai God manifested himself to the patriarchs (Ex 6:3): specifically to Abraham, Gen 17:1; to Isaac, Gen 28:3; and to Jacob, Gen 35:11; 43:14; 48:3. The context for most of these references is the covenant, more precisely the command for obedience and faithfulness on the part of the vassal and the promise of progeny by God.
(from Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament. Copyright (c) 1980 by The Moody Bible Institute of Chicago. All rights reserved. Used by permission.)

The promise of Progeny and God as the source of this remotely suggest a maternal side to God but...

I retract the statement because it is from spurious texts that are unsupported today by people much wiser than me. I apologize for the image and spurious reference. I cannot find the exact one at this time. I should stick to the Bible [Smile]
 
Posted by hermit (# 1803) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Peppone:
quote:
Originally posted by Tuggboat:
And that includes all books that lead me to believe its alright to sin. They are in error.
And what are genocide, infanticide? Morally neutral acts?

Here's a question, then, and not a rhetorical one. If you believed that God was telling you to destroy a pagan people- or maybe just one family- mother, father, maybe two kids- would you do it?
Let me take a shot at this, at risk of having skipped a few pages of reading. It would take a remarkable standard of proof that it was God communicating with me, since there's nothing in the Bible to indicate that killing people has been ordered by God or anticipated by Jesus for the future, at least not until the times forecast in Revelation (assuming that was a true prophecy of the endtimes). A mere voice in the head alone wouldn't be sufficient, as that's likely to be an indication of mental illness, nor would reading the Bible and by a chain of "reasoning" deciding that God wants you to kill. The standard nowadays presumably would have to be that a miracle be presented as proof that it was God communicating with you, something that you believe only God could do .... for example creating a new, extra, more colorful (for my tastes) moon ... bigger than the old one, and appearing suddenly just as predicted. And then you would need to watch the news for a while to be sure you weren't hallucinating it.

Not necessarily that of course, but something on that order of magnitude or greater. But yes, then I'd kill.

The idea of each life being infinitely precious and irreplaceable is derived from the philosophies of those who don't believe in an afterlife, so to them of course death is the greatest of tragedies, instantly wiping out every thought and feeling forever. This notion has permeated the culture so thoroughly that even Christians accept it unthinkingly - although to be sure it's a good position to start from!

I'm not saying our human lives are worthless, but neither are they infinitely valuable. Y'know, pigs have lives and thoughts and feelings too, think for a moment where that bacon came from you had for breakfast not long ago. That pig in the prime of its life, with all his lust for the lady pig in the next stall, happy love of fine slop cuisine, and trust of the farmer he's known all his life is taken to the meat factory one day. There he's bludgeoned, disemboweled, his hind legs cut off and cured .... eventually to provide breakfast for you.

And yet God is much further above us, than we are above a pig.

By the way, if I'm often brutal in my imagery and discussing life and death, it's to shock people into thinking about things they take for granted .... not to be trollish.
 
Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Esmeralda:
quote:
Originally posted by ONUnicorn:
Okay, maybe I wasn't clear in my retelling of the story...

Always before my Junior year of University, I had understood "it is" to be contracted as "it's". Then I took an English class with a professor who absolutely insisted that "it's" was wrong - whatever the context. He insisted "it is" should be shortened to "its" and would circle all instances of "it's" in bright red ink and take five points off for every instance of said usage. Other students pointed out that all accepted style manuals say "it's" is an accepted contraction for "it is" but it was his mission in life to stamp out "it's".
Your professor was wrong. Seriously wrong.

Damn straight he was.

How on Earth did they let him teach English?
 
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Probably because the people in charge of picking the English teachers don't know nuthin' 'bout no grammer neither.
 
Posted by Zeck (# 6855) on :
 
Hermit said:
quote:
<snip>...And then you would need to watch the news for a while to be sure you weren't hallucinating it.
I'm afraid this method of confirmation would be cause for more hallucinations. (at least for me)
 
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by hermit:

Here's a question, then, and not a rhetorical one. If you believed that God was telling you to destroy a pagan people- or maybe just one family- mother, father, maybe two kids- would you do it?
Just sticking my head in - cos I think I have something different to say this time.
I agree with a lot of what Hermit says. Especially his answer to the question that Wood asked earlier about why it is relatively recent that Christians have begun to struggle with these passages. The ultimate value of life as we know it now is a product of atheistic philosophy, and while a given of our society now I'm not sure it should be for a Christian. At the very least our philosophy of the value of life needs to be based on reasoning from the "image of God" rather than as a given - because as I have pointed out before there are plenty of recent societies that haven't seen it as a given at all - atheism or at least practical atheism can justify either the value of life, or it's complete worthlessness.
To be honest, and this isn't a dig but merely an observation, in an environment that is (rightly) suspiscious of the effect of the enlightenment on the Christian faith, I am surprised that this particular product has been accepted so unquestioningly in this discussion.

But I wouldn't kill someone even if I was convinced that God was telling me to - well to be honest because I wouldn't ever believe God was telling me to. I don't believe in that type of extra canonical revelation - post Christ.
Just wanted to say that.
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
Seeker963 - I ABSOLUTELY agree. There is no Christian basis for us persecuting let alone killing on God's behalf. At all. The dispensation has utterly changed. What was done in the Bronze Age under the Son's command is no model for Christians at all since the Son's ministry and death as a human. It is IMPOSSIBLE to kill in the name of Christ. We have our own authority for that.
 
Posted by Little Weed (# 4402) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
I don't doubt your sincerity, your faith, your journey, Little Weed. And I retract nothing. It's no caricature. Liberal rationalism utterly fails dialectically, utterly fails to be confronted by God as He is revealed, as He reveals Himself without patronization: killer saviour. Cannot deal with Him at all. So does my pathetic humanity in many, many less worthy ways.
I know you believe in the God whose righteous wrath which we all deserve is only stayed by his abundant grace. I understand how that approach works on an individual level because it shows wonderful humility (unless it develops into a who is least worthy competition) but it’s a lousy way to view our fellow human beings.

Why do you think I am not confronting the God of the OT? I think it’s because you still see violence and killing as stronger than love.

And hermit and Leprechaun, people are infinitely precious and irreplaceable. You are similarly free to consider your own lives worthless because of the afterlife but please do not apply this attitude to other people’s lives.
 
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Seeker963 - I ABSOLUTELY agree. There is no Christian basis for us persecuting let alone killing on God's behalf. At all. The dispensation has utterly changed. What was done in the Bronze Age under the Son's command is no model for Christians at all since the Son's ministry and death as a human. It is IMPOSSIBLE to kill in the name of Christ. We have our own authority for that.
Good to agree on something. [Yipee]
 
Posted by hermit (# 1803) on :
 
Well, Leprechaun, the quote you posted was actually by Peppone as quoted later by me, but your responce was quite good nonetheless. I think under the New Covenant any such questions about "what if God commanded us to kill a little girl with big sorry eyes" are so hypothetical as to be on the order of "what if pigs could sprout wings and fly" type questions (what is it with me and pigs lately?). The only thing I'm getting at is that it's not completely impossible that the genocides of the OT literally happened, although I somewhat doubt them myself. It's a slippery slope kinda thing with me ....

The "its/it's" dogma always has irritated me. They should BOTH be spelled with an apostrophe if English were completely rational, but fortunately it's not and someone with wealth and influence decided to change it to the current system a long time ago, perhaps after tiring of his tutors correcting him constantly as a youth.
 
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by hermit:
The "its/it's" dogma always has irritated me. They should BOTH be spelled with an apostrophe if English were completely rational,
Ah, so the pronoun would match hi's, her's, their's, your's, and our's?
 
Posted by ONUnicorn (# 7331) on :
 
Originally posted by Esmeralda:

quote:
An apostrophe is a stroke on a page. A human being is a sentient, conscious, intelligent, feeling being. Smiting apostrophes does not hurt them. Smiting people, on the other hand....
How do we know smiting apostrophes doesn't hurt them???

To put it another way, have you seen the move A.I.? Or Bicentennial Man with Robin Williams? Both of those movies (as well as dozens more, and hundreds of books) deal with a time in the future when computer technology has become advanced enough that it can "think" and "feel". Perhaps, we are almost at the thinking point now. Yet we feel no guilt when we dismantle a computer that no longer serves our needs. We made it, we can destroy it. Simple as that. Why should God feel any different about us?

Admittedly, the point of those two movies is trying to get us to think about this question, and trying to get us to feel guilty about it, and to not invent such a thing to begin with because it would create these sorts of moral dilemmas, but still... we don't feel guilty now. Why should it be wrong for our Creator to eliminate what no longer pleases Him?
 
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ONUnicorn:
Why should it be wrong for our Creator to eliminate what no longer pleases Him?
Because He created us in His image and loves us as his own children?
 
Posted by Tuggboat (# 7001) on :
 
Groups around the worldare using the original posts argument in interesting and novel ways.

I've found on the web.

The Islamics use this as a favorite argument against Christianity. They make an assumption that Hitler was a Christian Hence christians are evil. Where as Mein Kampf clearly has him replacing the Cross with swastika and Bible with sword and discontinuing printing the Bible. So it kind of fails basic logic Tests that he was a Christian.

The Hindu's use it against Christianity. They make a false association that our God is like Hitler because both committed genocide. They support this with an incomplete definition of genocide similar to the OP. It can be beat by undermining the primary premise with an expanded definition of genocide like I was trying to do earlier on this page.

The Nazis us it against the Jews. they claim its a secret of the Jews probably for world domination. One interesting thing about genocide and secrets is that it was only the Nazis that kept their genocide secret and the Bible is still openly published. Their sites are full of trojans and spyware by the way. What a hoot.

The Jews make references that compare Amalekites with terrorists and then breath the word Palestinian out in the next breath. Sheesh this thing is huge!

This is all over generalized and my own take on it but we should equip ourselves with some basic defensive logic. Who knows maybe Hitler himself started this to destroy Christianity. He said Christianity wasn't compatible with the new Reich but it would take about 200 years to eliminate.

His plan was bigger than just the Jews.
 
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tuggboat:
His plan was bigger than just the Jews.
Believe me, the Orthodox know that.
 
Posted by Little Weed (# 4402) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tuggboat:
They support this with an incomplete definition of genocide similar to the OP. It can be beat by undermining the primary premise with an expanded definition of genocide like I was trying to do earlier on this page.
Unfortunately for that argument, Tuggboat, you can't describe what God is reported to have told Joshua as anything other than genocide. It falls plainly within the definition agreed by the international community in the Genocide Convention.

Not only that but there has been a long-established and agreed theory of a Just War which sets out conditions for a war to be waged in the first place and limits on what you can do within warfare. The Christian Church has been intimately involved in describing and defining this (see, for example, St Thomas Aquinas) and it has been an accepted principle of the secular world in its present form for several hundred years (see, for example, the works of Grotius).

Can you see why some people are so exasperated that all they can say is (probably the best argument of all) "It's plain wrong"? Everyone in the world, apart from a few genocidal tyrants, considers it wrong. But on this thread we have good people who are arguing either that because God ordered it it must be a moral thing to do or that God can and does act in a way the whole of the rest of the world, and that includes the vast majority of Christians, consider so abominably immoral that they have even reached international agreement to say so.

But this is where you end up if you treat the bible as being an accurate news report. According to Joshua, God told him to commit genocide. There's one side of the debate here that holds that principle of biblical interpretation so firmly that it is prepared to say God approves of and from time to time orders genocide. And that means that they have no way of countering the arguments you cited in your post and certainly not by redefining genocide.

(And unfortunately if I say any more about biblical interpretation as I want to we'll be shunted off to the Dead Horses thread.)
 
Posted by Custard123 (# 5402) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Little Weed:
Everyone in the world, apart from a few genocidal tyrants, considers it wrong.
Is there a host around? I'm sure that counts as a personal attack.... [Biased]

In case you hadn't noticed, Weed, there are several of us on this thread alone who think that Joshua's actions were right.

[ 11. July 2004, 07:18: Message edited by: Custard123 ]
 
Posted by Pheonix (# 2782) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Little Weed:

Can you see why some people are so exasperated that all they can say is (probably the best argument of all) "It's plain wrong"? Everyone in the world, apart from a few genocidal tyrants, considers it wrong. But on this thread we have good people who are arguing either that because God ordered it it must be a moral thing to do or that God can and does act in a way the whole of the rest of the world, and that includes the vast majority of Christians, consider so abominably immoral that they have even reached international agreement to say so.
Yeah, but you're still judging people of 3000-4000 years ago by the standards and morals of today. I'm not saying the bible makes easy reading on those areas, but society and way of life was so much different then. As other people have stated the only way to stop blood feuds carrying on was to eradicate anyone who could fight, or who could produce people to fight oor those who might fight in the future... Unfortunately that means men, women and children. Is it right by our standards of today? No. Was it right then? How can we know without being there? Was it the way war worked in those days? Most probably.
 
Posted by Little Weed (# 4402) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Custard123:
quote:
Originally posted by Little Weed:
Everyone in the world, apart from a few genocidal tyrants, considers it wrong.
Is there a host around? I'm sure that counts as a personal attack.... [Biased]

In case you hadn't noticed, Weed, there are several of us on this thread alone who think that Joshua's actions were right.
My apologies. For "world" please read "secular world". I did go on to call people with opposing views on this thread "good" and I thought it was clear what I was saying. I have never intentionally attacked anyone, only their views.
 
Posted by Little Weed (# 4402) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pheonix:
Yeah, but you're still judging people of 3000-4000 years ago by the standards and morals of today. I'm not saying the bible makes easy reading on those areas, but society and way of life was so much different then. As other people have stated the only way to stop blood feuds carrying on was to eradicate anyone who could fight, or who could produce people to fight oor those who might fight in the future... Unfortunately that means men, women and children. Is it right by our standards of today? No. Was it right then? How can we know without being there? Was it the way war worked in those days? Most probably.
I don't think God changed his morals in the space of 3000 years. I think Joshua did believe that his people were the chosen ones and that God wanted them to massacre whole tribes - men, women, children - so that the chosen people could live in a particular geographical location that was more productive agriculturally. I am not however constrained by a particular way of interpreting the bible to say that it accurately represented a message directly from God. I understand the inerrantist point of view but it wasn't part of my mainstream evangelical upbringing and I have seen no reason to adopt it now.

To those who believe that the Book of Joshua is the literal truth, how do you reconcile it with the first few chapters of Judges?
 
Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tuggboat:
Groups around the worldare using the original posts argument in interesting and novel ways...<snip>

This is all over generalized and my own take on it but we should equip ourselves with some basic defensive logic. Who knows maybe Hitler himself started this to destroy Christianity.
Excuse me?

How on earth did you get that from the OP? I should know what I was talking about, after all. I did write the thing.

I think my actual difficulty with the genocidal passages - and frankly, I think the systematic destruction of a people group and their associated culture from the face of the earth falls into a pretty complete defintion of genocide, actually - is how this squares with the dire threats directed against those who mistreat foreigners in the Torah and God's own rules for us.

I see the reasoning behind the "God tells us notto do stuff, but is above His own rules" argument, and I have to admit that, as I noted right from the start, the idea of the value of the single human life comes from the enlightenment (I'd be careful about that, though - it's in the same age that the Church started preaching of the need for individual personal commitments of faith. Not a coincidence, I'll wager).

But the problem is, if God gives us rules and breaks them, He becomes a sub-Divine hypocrite by His own standards. He becomes less than God; flawed; imperfect; and all by His own standard of integrity. God's moral character does not change, right? But surely, by creating an hypocrisy in the character of God, we - paradoxically, since the argument weighs heavily on the character of God's divinity - strip Him of His divinity.

You may be surprised to know that this makes me uneasy.

[ 11. July 2004, 08:44: Message edited by: Wood ]
 
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :
 
We have to be careful here Wood - it is absolutely unambiguous from both the Old and New Testaments that God does explicitly judge people in the here and now for their actions in this world. The most extreme case of this is of course the story of Herod in Acts 12

quote:
20Then Herod went from Judea to Caesarea and stayed there a while. He had been quarreling with the people of Tyre and Sidon; they now joined together and sought an audience with him. Having secured the support of Blastus, a trusted personal servant of the king, they asked for peace, because they depended on the king's country for their food supply.
21On the appointed day Herod, wearing his royal robes, sat on his throne and delivered a public address to the people. 22They shouted, "This is the voice of a god, not of a man." 23Immediately, because Herod did not give praise to God, an angel of the Lord struck him down, and he was eaten by worms and died.
Not a passage that gets preached very often!

So it is clear that God is not constrained by the same rules as we are. So your hypocriscy argument is clearly not applicable.
 
Posted by kiwigoldfish (# 5512) on :
 
Part of the issue here for me is how God is revealed through Christ. Yes, we have a serious God. He's not all fluffy-ducklings. But in Luke 6:35-36 we have Jesus talking about being kind to our enemies because "...you will be the sons of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful."

This was Jesus' attitude on the cross. He asks us to emulate it. He says it's* the Father's attitude.

Where does genocide fit into that? In the Joshua tale we either have a God who is not merciful (or shows no evidence of mercy at this point in time) - which is at odds with Jesus' revelation of the Father, or we have a military commander trying to please God in the way he saw fit - realising that God was holy but not realising how merciful He is. Or we have numerous other scernarios I guess, but these seem to me to be the main options.

Kiwi

*it's = it is. Even a grammatical ignoramus such as myself knows that.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kiwigoldfish:
Where does genocide fit into that? In the Joshua tale we either have a God who is not merciful (or shows no evidence of mercy at this point in time) - which is at odds with Jesus' revelation of the Father, or we have a military commander trying to please God in the way he saw fit - realising that God was holy but not realising how merciful He is. Or we have numerous other scernarios I guess, but these seem to me to be the main options.
Or we have a military commander being led by a god who is not actually God Himself, but who only represents Him. And quite imperfectly. But nevertheless perfectly enough to take His place in a temporary kind of way.

The "Being" who appeared to Moses and spoke to Joshua was God in the sense of being "the Almighty" before whom no enemy can stand.

But He was not God Himself - the God that emerges from the teachings of the Old Testament as a whole. This is why these stories so often call the one appearing "the angel of the Lord" and then in the next sentence call Him "the Lord." It is confusing, but the reason is that God Himself could not possibly appear to humans in any form that wouldn't completely destroy them. He therefore appeared, more perfectly or less perfectly, by means of angels or spirits who took on His name, and were allowed to represent Him.

God Himself is not only powerful and the enemy of evil, but loving and merciful as well. This is God as He is especially revealed in the New Testament. Yet even there, as others have pointed out, judgment and wrath are not absent from His character. A true idea of God, however, in my opinion, is one of love itself, wisdom itself, and is therefore a God of pure mercy.

Why is the idea that God has progressively revealed His true nature so difficult? The "God" that commanded genocide was not God, but one who was permitted to take His place in a violent culture. The purpose of this was to lead humanity in the long run away from genocide, violence and hatred.

Jehovah's acts and commands, like the actions and words of many characters in the Old Testament, were not necessarily good in themselves, but they were ALWAYS metaphorically good, representing the destruction of evil and the establishment of good. This is why God permitted them to happen and be portrayed the way they were in the Holy Bible.

So those aren't the only two scenarios, or even the main ones. God did not order genocide, but He allowed Himself to be portrayed that way for the purpose of humanity's long-term salvation.
 
Posted by TrudyTrudy (I say unto you) (# 5647) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
The ultimate value of life as we know it now is a product of atheistic philosophy, and while a given of our society now I'm not sure it should be for a Christian. At the very least our philosophy of the value of life needs to be based on reasoning from the "image of God" rather than as a given - because as I have pointed out before there are plenty of recent societies that haven't seen it as a given at all - atheism or at least practical atheism can justify either the value of life, or it's complete worthlessness.
To be honest, and this isn't a dig but merely an observation, in an environment that is (rightly) suspiscious of the effect of the enlightenment on the Christian faith, I am surprised that this particular product has been accepted so unquestioningly in this discussion.
Do we know for sure, though, that the value we place on human life is a product of atheistic philosophy? How do we know it's not a product of 2000 years of Christianity, and it's just taken that long for it to sink into our thick human skulls -- that we are all valuable in the eyes of God? As you point out, an atheist philosophy can be used to justify placing ultimate value on human life--or placing no value on it at all. History suggests that Christianity can be used in either of the same two ways...but at least in the case of Christianity, we have a text to work from which preserves the words of our Founder, who said that not one sparrow falls to the ground without our Father, and that each of us is of far more value than many sparrows.
 
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TrudyTrudy (I say unto you):
Do we know for sure, though, that the value we place on human life is a product of atheistic philosophy? How do we know it's not a product of 2000 years of Christianity, and it's just taken that long for it to sink into our thick human skulls -- that we are all valuable in the eyes of God?
Sorry - I haven't made myself clear. I do believe in the value of human life, and that people have no right to take life away from one another. But I believe in that because I believe we are God's image bearers - it is God's ultimate value, that gives us our value in his image. (that's why I believe, for example, that killing babies is far worse than killing slugs)
But as my view of the value of human life is dervaitive of my view of the value of God, it therefore means that I believe God has the right to give and take life in a way that we do not. Which is why I don't accept that a morally right God wouldn't or couldn't take life away from people. (which, I think, is the presupposition underlying a lot of this thread)
Sorry, that still feels a bit garbled, but I can't think of how to improve my expression of it.
Also, on why I think it's not just something in the Bible sinking in - well I'm just pointing out that Christians started to believe this, and struggle with the passages in question after the Enlightenment, which I don't think is coincidental.

Hermit - sorry for misattributing that quote to you.
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
Little Weed

quote:
I know you believe in the God whose righteous wrath which we all deserve is only stayed by his abundant grace. I understand how that approach works on an individual level because it shows wonderful humility (unless it develops into a who is least worthy competition) but it’s a lousy way to view our fellow human beings.

Why do you think I am not confronting the God of the OT? I think it’s because you still see violence and killing as stronger than love.

I am so very 'umble. It's not MY view of my fellow human beings. At least it shouldn't be. At all, with regard to any contemporary, historical or pre-Christian human beings. Any more than it was Abraham's - who pleaded with God for Sodom and Moses who offered his eternal life for Israel. It's GOD's. God's prerogative. NOT mine even to think it. If I am involved in killing - which I am by utterly endorsing the conquest of Iraq, by regarding total war against Germany and Japan with unconditional surrender as non-negotiable - it must be on my own account.

Your last paragraph is a total mystery to me. Why do you think I think you are not confronting the God of the OT? How could you possibly think, infer, deduce that I regard violence and killing as stronger than love? Nothing is stronger than love. God is love. Love who kills to attain its end.

Do I conclude that you are a liberal rationalist and God is NOT as He reveals Himself in the Bronze Age? Therefore your confrontation is with fundamentalist inerrantists like myself?

Do you accept that God is accurately revealed as a killer and take exception to Him, therefore you confront Him? As Abraham and Moses did and we all should? How long, oh Lord?

[ 11. July 2004, 15:18: Message edited by: Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard ]
 
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Do you accept that God is accurately revealed as a killer and take exception to Him, therefore you confront Him? As Abraham and Moses did and we all should? How long, oh Lord?
I do not think that God is accurately revealed as a loving killer in the bible. I think that God was inaccurately interpreted to be a "loving killer" (sic) and that inaccurate perception was recorded in scripture.

God is love and therefore does not condone, recommend or engage in murder or genocide. "How long, oh Lord?" indeed. The more I've read this thread, the more I've come to understand that inerrantism is more dangerous than I ever thought it was. That's not a swipe; it's a serious comment.
 
Posted by Cheesy* (# 3330) on :
 
Ok, Lep. I admit, I'm now completely confused.

As the creator, God can build up or break down, give life or take away as he choses. I accept this. I *think* I can accept that God is not subject to the same rules as everyone else - vis a vis taking human life.

But on a purely human level, as I said before, even accepting a certain level of intellectual acceptance of the above position, even then,

Genocide is just plain wrong, dammit.

If God is wanting to express his justice about wrongs in the world by killing a large number of people, he is just going to have to find some other instrument to use because this idiot isn't going to let it happen.

C
 
Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
We have to be careful here Wood - it is absolutely unambiguous from both the Old and New Testaments that God does explicitly judge people in the here and now for their actions in this world. The most extreme case of this is of course the story of Herod in Acts 12

quote:
20Then Herod went from Judea to Caesarea and stayed there a while. He had been quarreling with the people of Tyre and Sidon; they now joined together and sought an audience with him. Having secured the support of Blastus, a trusted personal servant of the king, they asked for peace, because they depended on the king's country for their food supply.
21On the appointed day Herod, wearing his royal robes, sat on his throne and delivered a public address to the people. 22They shouted, "This is the voice of a god, not of a man." 23Immediately, because Herod did not give praise to God, an angel of the Lord struck him down, and he was eaten by worms and died.
Not a passage that gets preached very often!

So it is clear that God is not constrained by the same rules as we are. So your hypocrisy argument is clearly not applicable.
Um, it may indeed not be applicable, but this passage isn't the one that proves me wrong.

All it shows is that God passes judgement on a human being who denies His commands. God says: "don't pretend to my station" and enforces that.

But that's part of God's covenant, part of God's deal. God isn't doing anything outside of what He has already said. This is demonstrably different from saying "don't kill and treat foreigners well - no, wait. Except for the Canaanites. It's OK when you destroy the Canaanites." If you take it as read, without context, it's almost as if he's altering the rules for the Canaanites.

It's made worse when you take into account the rules for the protection of foreigners... the role of a Moabite in OT Israel history... the fact that it's a Canaanite who gets the Israelites into Jericho... you get the picture.

I've got to say, so far, apart from some of the stuff Psyduck wrote, it's only the clever ex post facto rationalisation I cribbed from Augustine makes any sense to me so far. Which is depressing, because that isn't without its holes.
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
Seeker963. Why am I, therefore, dangerous? I do not condone, AT ALL, killing in God's name, homophobia, racism, agism (takes bottle that - no mute E), sexism etc, etc. I see liberal rationalism as equally dangerous in the long run as Calvinist inerrantism. Inerrantism is a broad church. Mine is informed by science and grace.
 
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Cheesy*:
Ok, Lep. I admit, I'm now completely confused.

As the creator, God can build up or break down, give life or take away as he choses. I accept this. I *think* I can accept that God is not subject to the same rules as everyone else - vis a vis taking human life.

But on a purely human level, as I said before, even accepting a certain level of intellectual acceptance of the above position, even then,

Genocide is just plain wrong, dammit.

I am confused as well.
Are you saying you accept the position you've outlined above, but your problem with the passage in question is that its a lot of people at once?

Just to clarify, I've made it clear that I don't think people under the new covenant are asked to behave in this way. Is your problem with these passages, merely that you think they can be used to justify me (or anyone else) asking you to commit genocide? Because I don't think they can based on these passages. I've said that.
 
Posted by Cheesy* (# 3330) on :
 
I don't know, Lep. I don't think God is like that.

Even if he was (and even if intellectually I accept that he has the right to take away human life) I am not going to allow him to use me for the purpose.

Just saying 'God told me to do it' is a tired excuse. And unprovable either way.

Hope thats a bit clearer.

C
 
Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Just to clarify, I've made it clear that I don't think people under the new covenant are asked to behave in this way. Is your problem with these passages, merely that you think they can be used to justify me (or anyone else) asking you to commit genocide? Because I don't think they can based on these passages. I've said that.
The problem is that the New Covenant doesn't signify one single change in the moral character of God - rather it signifies a change in man's relationship with God.

Hence, while God clearly doesn't countenance genocide, by your reckoning, He could still order it. In terms of a reckoning of the character of God, it makes no difference what Covenant we're under, since God's moral character remains eternal.
 
Posted by Little Weed (# 4402) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
I do not think that God is accurately revealed as a loving killer in the bible. I think that God was inaccurately interpreted to be a "loving killer" (sic) and that inaccurate perception was recorded in scripture.

God is love and therefore does not condone, recommend or engage in murder or genocide. "How long, oh Lord?" indeed. The more I've read this thread, the more I've come to understand that inerrantism is more dangerous than I ever thought it was. That's not a swipe; it's a serious comment.
Seeker963, I endorse every word of your post.

Martin, I will reply when I have time to consider your post properly.
 
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:

But that's part of God's covenant, part of God's deal. God isn't doing anything outside of what He has already said. This is demonstrably different from saying "don't kill and treat foreigners well - no, wait. Except for the Canaanites. It's OK when you destroy the Canaanites." If you take it as read, without context, it's almost as if he's altering the rules for the Canaanites.

It's made worse when you take into account the rules for the protection of foreigners... the role of a Moabite in OT Israel history... the fact that it's a Canaanite who gets the Israelites into Jericho... you get the picture.
Ok - that clarifies what you are arguing - but IMO you've missed the significance of the word 'sojourner' - which is the term used in the KJV for these people, in distinction to the people of the land. The 'Sojourner' is the member of the ethnic minority, who is at a disadvantage because they are in a potentially hostile host community, and they need to be treated kindly. But this category does not extend to 'the people of the land' who are subject to the judgement of God.

It's the same mistake as seeing 'Thou shalt not kill' as a condemnation of the death penalty - which is made mandatory for certain offences a few verses later......
 
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:

Hence, while God clearly doesn't countenance genocide, by your reckoning, He could still order it. In terms of a reckoning of the character of God, it makes no difference what Covenant we're under, since God's moral character remains eternal.
Well, I don't think he "could", because I think he has committed himself to not so doing, which was not the case in Joshua.
But it depends whether your issue with the passage is that "Its just wrong for God to do this" - in which case I have said why I don't think it is several posts ago.
I was answering Cheesy saying (I think, although I'm still not clear) "I'd" not do it if God asked me to. What I'm saying is that post-Christ he won't.
That's why I think, even if it wasn't a swipe Seeker's "inerrantism is dangerous" is provocative rubbish. Not one inerrantist here has said that the Joshua passage justifies genocide per se. I do believe in progressive revelation, just not that what comes later contradicts what was earlier.
 
Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:

But that's part of God's covenant, part of God's deal. God isn't doing anything outside of what He has already said. This is demonstrably different from saying "don't kill and treat foreigners well - no, wait. Except for the Canaanites. It's OK when you destroy the Canaanites." If you take it as read, without context, it's almost as if he's altering the rules for the Canaanites.

It's made worse when you take into account the rules for the protection of foreigners... the role of a Moabite in OT Israel history... the fact that it's a Canaanite who gets the Israelites into Jericho... you get the picture.
Ok - that clarifies what you are arguing - but IMO you've missed the significance of the word 'sojourner' - which is the term used in the KJV for these people, in distinction to the people of the land. The 'Sojourner' is the member of the ethnic minority, who is at a disadvantage because they are in a potentially hostile host community, and they need to be treated kindly. But this category does not extend to 'the people of the land' who are subject to the judgement of God.
Actually, that's a nicety if ever I've heard one. Even if you're right, I don't think it reduces the force of my argument.
 
Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
But it depends whether your issue with the passage is that "Its just wrong for God to do this" - in which case I have said why I don't think it is several posts ago.
Not really my issue (although it's my entry point) - as I said in the OP.
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
Cheesy - God kills us ALL. God has condemned us all to death since Eden. Or the Big Bang. Literal or rational the result is identical. We are all mortal. The flaw with liberal rationalism is that it has to go to indordinate, entity proliferating lengths to accommodate God = Love.

If the Bronze Age God is our entirely our anthropomorphism of the time, then He is in just as much need of confrontation for His capricious, careless insouciance as the Calvinist one.

Why do we need to suffer SO much? We do we need to be so separated from Him? So alienated? Or is that word dangerous as it could imply sin?

Is He incapable of creating WITHOUT evolution? What a tangent! If so, angels canot possibly exist. A fine liberal sentiment. Gotta go.
 
Posted by LatePaul (# 7562) on :
 
Just read the whole thread - phew!

This touches something I'd really like to get sorted in my own life - how do we interpret the bible and how much weight can we place on what it says?

So basically there seem to be two strands of thought in this thread -

a) Joshua really was told by God to commit genocide and therefore it's was a moral thing to do in those specific circumstances if in no others.

b) Genocide is always wrong, therefore God could not have ordered Joshua to do it as that's not the nature of God we know from Jesus. The OT passages that say he did are a case of history being writen by the winners and should be read both in subservience to the NT revelation (esp Jesus) and through the lens of the times and culture in which they were written.

(I hope that's a fair summary)

I find a) unsatisfactory because it leaves us with a God who can call something most of us instinctively feel is evil good. Not only call it so but carry it out. Such a God is not only hard to reconcile with the NT but is repellant.

b) is better because it means we have a God who is not a monster - but my problem now is this God is so feckless a communicator that he allows such a gross distortion of his real character to stand as the authoritative revelation of who he is for hundreds of years. Even when a better, clearer revelation appears in the form of Jesus, this God apparently refuses to negate or at least modify the earlier text. Although what Jesus says appears inconsistent with Joshua, he claims to fully support it as Scripture.

Also, as far as time and culture goes - are we really saying that genocide was once considered good, even holy? Has human nature changed so much in 3000 years that killing babies was once regarded a moral thing provided they were some other tribe's babies? I sincerely doubt that. Indeed why is there a specific instruction to kill the various non-combatants if it didn't go against the normal patterns of warfare of that time, as well as the normal impulses.

I really find this very difficult. I have two inconsistent views of God. I'm told that the OT must be viewed in the light of the culture of the day - but that doesn't work for me, as I've explained because I don't believe that God could allow himself to be so misrepresented for so long and I don't believe that people of Joshua's time viewed genocide as an acceptable norm. I'm also told that we should interpret the OT in terms of the NT - but that seems arbitrary to me. Why should the NT God be the real one and the OT one be the distortion and not vice-versa? Because he's nicer? because he's more recent?

I'd be a lot happier if I could just throw out parts of the OT altogether - but apparently the Church has not seen fit to do so in 2000 years so why should I?

So it leaves me with a book I don't know how to read or how much to trust.


[Confused] [Frown]
 
Posted by TrudyTrudy (I say unto you) (# 5647) on :
 
LatePaul , I'm with you on every word of your post. Could've written it myself, but won't bother now.
 
Posted by hermit (# 1803) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by ONUnicorn:
Why should it be wrong for our Creator to eliminate what no longer pleases Him?
Because He created us in His image and loves us as his own children?
I suppose He cared enough for future generations to show us examples of bad things happening to those who disobeyed Him, or who killed members of the tribe symbolic of His presence on Earth. And to show concrete examples of His power.

All possessives should end in 's or 'es if English were rational: The penny of him .... him's penny. The penny of you ... you's penny. The penny of them .... them's penny. It would seem annoying to us at first, but think of how much easier it would be for children and adults learning English. Won't someone PLEASE think of the children?

quote:
But on this thread we have good people who are arguing either that because God ordered it it must be a moral thing to do or that God can and does act in a way the whole of the rest of the world, and that includes the vast majority of Christians, consider so abominably immoral that they have even reached international agreement to say so.

Little Weed, were on earth did you ever get the idea that murdering people in or out of a massacre is a bad thing? In fact if you ask many people around the world .... Rwandans, Serbians, American rightwing taxicab drivers .... you'd get a very different opinion of killing, many people believe that what their country needs right now is a good old-fashioned bloodbath. How can you possibly say that your moral judgments are better than theirs (them's)? Well, the only way other than claiming some human thinker said so (and then they claim some other great thinker like Saddam Hussein said otherwise) .... is by pointing out that God said so, who is infinitely wiser than we are. And unfortunately the only place we have indications of God's will is the Bible, which says that He both commanded genocides, and executions for breaking His law in various ways (one of which is for MURDER, not KILLING - obviously someone had to execute murderers without themselves becoming guilty of the sin).

Basically if you say the OT record is warped on the matter of killings and genocides and commandments, it's so unreliable that it should be tossed entirely. And since Revelation is more of the same we need to get rid of that also. And since Paul talked about the authority of the state to kill we need to carve his writings out of the Bible also, and besides he was homophobic.

Well, that leaves us with the gospels and a few other books. But Jesus affirmed the authority of the Law (the Torah, first five books of the OT, which contained the massacre of the Amalekites):

Matthew 5:18
I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

And he also said, "

Matthew 23:23
"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices–mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law–justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former." Note that justice and faithfulness are as important as mercy.

Worse, he went around whipping bankers and merchants while probably not expecting us to do it, cursed a fig tree to death, and told his followers to sell whatever they needed to sell in order to buy swords!

So if Jesus affirmed the jots and tittles of the Law which contains the Amalekite genocide .... according to some here we must discard much of the Biblical record of what Jesus said in addition to the OT and Paul. And that doesn't really leave us with much, does it? A sort of legendary folk hero, whose words we can pick and choose, something like Robin Hood or that Irish fellow - Cuculain, was it?

I think it's safer to treat the Bible as inerrant or close to it, than to go down that slippery slope, as so many Christians are doing nowadays. Sure, we may get to Heaven and be greeted by Jesus rolling his eyes and saying, "you didn't actually believe God commanded those killings, did you? Couldn't you figure out that it was an allegory with a meaning pretty much opposite to what it seemed to mean?" But I choose to accept as much of the Bible at face value as I can, through the interpretation of the Church, otherwise there's not much sense in claiming to be a Christian or Catholic.
quote:
I don't think God changed his morals in the space of 3000 years.
No, but has changed ours .... that's what "New Covenant" means.
quote:
But the problem is, if God gives us rules and breaks them, He becomes a sub-Divine hypocrite by His own standards.
Wood, here we come back to whether an adult mother is hypocritical to scold her 3 year old child for lighting matches when she does the same thing.
quote:
But in Luke 6:35-36 we have Jesus talking about being kind to our enemies because "...you will be the sons of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful."

This was Jesus' attitude on the cross. He asks us to emulate it. He says it's* the Father's attitude.

Where does genocide fit into that?
But not endlessly kind and merciful, Kiwigoldfish, He gave the Amalekites plenty of chances over a span of hundreds of years. Nor would we be expected to be so kind and merciful we wouldn't kill someone trying to kill us or one of our children, if it came down to that.
quote:
But He was not God Himself - the God that emerges from the teachings of the Old Testament as a whole.
Well, that's gnostic and I suppose Swedenborg must have agreed with the gnostic position. I don't get any impression at all from the words of Jesus that the OT God was a lesser god, and that Jesus came obeying some newer and greater God whose teachings completely overturned the old.
quote:
God is love and therefore does not condone, recommend or engage in murder or genocide.
"God is love" is the only thing the Bible has to say about God that's accurate? How were you able to weed that out of the whole mess, do you have some special powers?
quote:
If God is wanting to express his justice about wrongs in the world by killing a large number of people, he is just going to have to find some other instrument to use because this idiot isn't going to let it happen.
All of us have the ability to choose whether or not to obey God, and I'm sure you won't be commanded to kill ..... but perhaps we all ought to obey what IS within our ability.
quote:
But that's part of God's covenant, part of God's deal. God isn't doing anything outside of what He has already said. This is demonstrably different from saying "don't kill and treat foreigners well - no, wait. Except for the Canaanites. It's OK when you destroy the Canaanites."
There's no record of God saying in the original Hebrew not to kill .... that would be ludicrous in view of His many commands to kill. The word is best translated as "murder" - killing humans aside from His commandments.

[ 11. July 2004, 18:44: Message edited by: hermit ]
 
Posted by J. J. Ramsey (# 1174) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LatePaul:

Has human nature changed so much in 3000 years that killing babies was once regarded a moral thing provided they were some other tribe's babies?
From Psalm 137:8-9:

quote:

O daughter Babylon, you devastator! Happy shall they be who pay you back what you have done to us!

Happy shall they be who take your little ones and dash them against the rock!
I don't know if human nature has changed, but killing other tribes' babies was certainly thinkable back then. [Frown]
 
Posted by Peppone (# 3855) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Cheesy - God kills us ALL.
No. This is to confuse God with our enemy.
 
Posted by Peppone (# 3855) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by J. J. Ramsey:
quote:

O daughter Babylon, you devastator! Happy shall they be who pay you back what you have done to us!

Happy shall they be who take your little ones and dash them against the rock!
I don't know if human nature has changed, but killing other tribes' babies was certainly thinkable back then. [Frown]
This always seems to be interpreted as meaning that the psalmist also looked forward to that hideous event. But in fact, he's saying, "What you have done to us will be done to you in the end, because that is the world you have created by your actions."

It is a cry of grief, not triumph.
 
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Peppone:
This always seems to be interpreted as meaning that the psalmist also looked forward to that hideous event.
Yes, I think it's the "Happy are they" part that makes it seem so. That particular phrase (same word as the first word of Psalm 1 -- "Blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the wicked") is in fact a phrase of approbation.
 
Posted by J. J. Ramsey (# 1174) on :
 
I suppose I have a high-tolerance for counter-intuitiveness, but I can see God looking at all the various possible courses of history and deciding that as horrific as it was, genocide was the least worst solution to make the course of history go the right way, given the hardness of hearts at the time. That doesn't make genocide good, only the other possibilities even more evil.
 
Posted by J. J. Ramsey (# 1174) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Peppone:
quote:
Originally posted by J. J. Ramsey:
quote:

O daughter Babylon, you devastator! Happy shall they be who pay you back what you have done to us!

Happy shall they be who take your little ones and dash them against the rock!
I don't know if human nature has changed, but killing other tribes' babies was certainly thinkable back then. [Frown]
This always seems to be interpreted as meaning that the psalmist also looked forward to that hideous event. But in fact, he's saying, "What you have done to us will be done to you in the end, because that is the world you have created by your actions."

It is a cry of grief, not triumph.
I agree that it is a cry of grief, but it is a cry of grief that seems to rejoice in the brutal death of children. That's the kind of hardness of heart that has been around in those centuries (and has reared its head in this one all too often). That is also the kind of hardness of heart that God has had to deal with.
 
Posted by Peppone (# 3855) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
That particular phrase (same word as the first word of Psalm 1 -- "Blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the wicked") is in fact a phrase of approbation.
So it could/ should be read

quote:
Blessed shall be they who dash your babies against the rock
Then my "cry of grief" interpretation doesn't fit. Back to square one.
 
Posted by Cheesy* (# 3330) on :
 
Ok, I've been thinking about this through evening church.

Yes, I agree with Martin, we are all dying. As we (ok I) believe God holds the keys to our life and death, in a sense he sanctions the circumstances.

So, in a way, death is actually morally neutral. It happens to everyone.

Given that, if you happen to be God and you happen to have decided that you are going to make x group of people exit their mortal coils at this particular point in time, then that is your lookout.

So... if God really had decided to exert justice via Joshua then maybe there is no argument. He's God and he does what he choses. One time he chose a flood, another the sword.

So maybe there is another way of looking at it. Maybe the story of Abraham and Issac was God saying 'I can demand that you sacrifice your children, but I'm not going to do that from this point onwards'.

And maybe likewise in the OT there were occasions when God was saying 'I'm God and I can behave like this if I chose. You horrible little man, take that!'

And maybe in the NT, Jesus, the image of God, was drawing a line in the sand and saying 'God can do all those things you know about, but he isn't going to any more. In the past, people got illnesses and whatnot because of sin, but now I tell you that you should not look down on the leper. In the past, the men of God struck down the enemies, now I tell you to lay down your life for them.'

Maybe God looked down at all he had created and in the final analysis decided it wasn't so good after all so he had to come down and show us a better way.

[/sanctimonious drivel]

C
 
Posted by J. J. Ramsey (# 1174) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Peppone:
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
That particular phrase (same word as the first word of Psalm 1 -- "Blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the wicked") is in fact a phrase of approbation.
So it could/ should be read

quote:
Blessed shall be they who dash your babies against the rock
Then my "cry of grief" interpretation doesn't fit. Back to square one.
More like square two.

Your particular interpretation of how is it a "cry of grief" is wrong, but you are right that it is a cry of grief. It's that it is a cry of grief expressed as anger toward one's enemy, rather than sorrow for one's enemy.
 
Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :
 
Late Paul, Trudy Trudy and Wood - I really wish I had more time but I think that you would all be really interested in reading the book 'Violence Unveiled' by Gil Bailie. It is a book based on Girard's thinking and it really does reveal the central leitmotif of the Old Testament, and the relationship of violence and ancient religion.

If I have time tomorrow I may post something - this thread moves so fast that it is difficult to keep up - especially when time on the internet is limited.


Got to go

Luigi
 
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Seeker963. Why am I, therefore, dangerous? I do not condone, AT ALL, killing in God's name, homophobia, racism, agism (takes bottle that - no mute E), sexism etc, etc. I see liberal rationalism as equally dangerous in the long run as Calvinist inerrantism. Inerrantism is a broad church. Mine is informed by science and grace.
I have no idea whether you, personally, are dangerous or not. But, ISTM that inerrantism does leave someone, somewhere the possibility of saying "Murder is good when it is God's will".

I hope I can explain this in words. I'm starting from the premise that ethical principles like "Murder is wrong" and "Genocide is wrong" are inalterable principles. But some people are happy to modify those statements into "Genocide is right when God does it" in order to leave unchallenged the first principle of "the biblical narrative is always literal and factual in the modernist sense of literal and factual". To me, it seems far safer not to have to twist and turn ethics and morality in order to retain that level of inerrantism.

Every single ideology has its strengths and its weaknesses. I don't mean the following disrespectfully, feel free to disagree with me ut this comes from my own upbringing in inerrancy. I think the difference between a positioned non-inerrantist approach and a positioned inerrantist one is that the positioned non-inerrantist will admit to interpreting and reading scripture in the light of his or her own culture and perception. The positioned inerrantist, in my personal experience, not only does not admit to personally interpreting but often gets angry when "interpretation" is even hinted at whereas I feel that I can see very clearly all the cultural presuppositions that inerrantists use.

(Pease note that I'm using the terms "positioned inerrantism" and "positioned non-inerrantism" deliberately. I really can't work with your "liberal rationalist" argument because I've met almost no-one in churches inerrantists call "liberal" who are actually liberal rationalists; although I'm sure there are some somwhere.)

What I'm saying is that I previously thought inerrantism was "different but not harmful". Now I see that it offers the possibility of saying "Murder can be good if done in God's name". So it does seem to offer the potential of being truly dangerous.
 
Posted by Manx Taffy (# 301) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Cheesy*:

And maybe likewise in the OT there were occasions when God was saying 'I'm God and I can behave like this if I chose. You horrible little man, take that!'

And maybe in the NT, Jesus, the image of God, was drawing a line in the sand and saying 'God can do all those things you know about, but he isn't going to any more. In the past, people got illnesses and whatnot because of sin, but now I tell you that you should not look down on the leper. In the past, the men of God struck down the enemies, now I tell you to lay down your life for them.'

Maybe God looked down at all he had created and in the final analysis decided it wasn't so good after all so he had to come down and show us a better way.

[/sanctimonious drivel]

C
So the omnipotent god proves his power by wiping out a whole nation - its nor big and its not clever. On the basis that he created the universe I think we can assume he could do that if he really wanted to without the need for any such special effects.

Rather than say people used to get ill through sin or it used to be right to sacrifice your children or good people could strike down their enemies with God's help, I think he was saying that such things were never God's way despite men wrongly thinking that's how a powerful god should behave.
 
Posted by Tuggboat (# 7001) on :
 
Here's a very thorough treatment of the subject. Its nearly as long as this thread. Extermination of the Amalekites

Its (sic) long so if you go to the bottom of the page and see his summary points you can determine if its of interest enough to plow all the way through.

[Don't put in http:// twice.]

[ 12. July 2004, 03:16: Message edited by: Tortuf ]
 
Posted by hermit (# 1803) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:

1. But, ISTM that inerrantism does leave someone, somewhere the possibility of saying "Murder is good when it is God's will".

2.Every single ideology has its strengths and its weaknesses. I don't mean the following disrespectfully, feel free to disagree with me ut this comes from my own upbringing in inerrancy. I think the difference between a positioned non-inerrantist approach and a positioned inerrantist one is that the positioned non-inerrantist will admit to interpreting and reading scripture in the light of his or her own culture and perception. The positioned inerrantist, in my personal experience, not only does not admit to personally interpreting but often gets angry when "interpretation" is even hinted at whereas I feel that I can see very clearly all the cultural presuppositions that inerrantists use.

1. No, by my definition there can NEVER be a murder by God's will, since the ancient Hebrew word for "murder" is defined as killing a human aside from God's will. But a killing or genocide could certainly be the best way of bringing about the results desired.

2. Just to be clear about the official Catholic stance, it's that Holy Scripture is entirely inspired by God (although some Catholic scholars dissent on that), but that it must be interpreted properly in terms of the culture and language of those times, and that it's all too easy for those who take a "private interpretation" of Scripture to impose their own values in their interpretation .... which is what I was getting at when I've insisted to Psyduck among others, that Jesus wasn't a modern liberal college professor.
 
Posted by corpusdelicti (# 5124) on :
 
quote:
Originally poted by Manx Taffy
So the omnipotent god proves his power by wiping out a whole nation
But not in the cases we're discussing - he orders the Jews to do the killing, he doesn't do it himself.

Some time ago ONUnicorn posted from 1 Sam 15:
quote:
2 "Thus says the LORD of hosts, 'I will punish Amalek {for} what he did to Israel, how he set himself against him on the way while he was coming up from Egypt. 3 'Now go and strike Amalek and utterly destroy all that he has,
So God passes the buck, presumably he could have destroyed himself, but doesn't.

I find this disturbing, we have God destroying people (the flood, Sodom, Egypt) himself earlier, but now passes on the responsibility: and this AFTER he has given the Law, including "Thou shalt not murder". This command to kill is also clearly opposed to the NT "turn the other cheek" etc.

So did God change his mind somewhere along the way? Killing, then ordering not to, then ordering to kill, and back again, and again... If so, how can we trust in such a capricious God?

Or is God constant, and only human interpretaton variable?
 
Posted by Jon Doe (# 7823) on :
 
Umm, tuggboat, should that link have been

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/rbutcher1.html

(it didn't work originally for me as your link had two http's)

thanks for the link, will have a read once I have more time

jon
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by hermit:
quote:
Freddy: But He was not God Himself - the God that emerges from the teachings of the Old Testament as a whole.
Well, that's gnostic and I suppose Swedenborg must have agreed with the gnostic position. I don't get any impression at all from the words of Jesus that the OT God was a lesser god, and that Jesus came obeying some newer and greater God whose teachings completely overturned the old.
It's not gnostic. It's not that Jesus said that the God of the OT was a lesser God, but that the impression of God needed correction.

Jesus did not completely overturn the definition of God. He did, however, change the things that God had said to Israel:
quote:
Matthew 19:8 He said to them, "Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so."
The commandment that Jesus refers to was not a commandment from Moses but supposedly from God Himself:
quote:
Deuteronomy 24:1 "When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some uncleanness in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, puts [it] in her hand, and sends her out of his house.
Isn't Jesus saying that the commandment was not actually from God Himself, but was an accommodation to the hardness of their hearts?

Similarly with the laws about swearing oaths:
quote:
Matthew 5:33 you have heard that it was said to those of old, 'You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform your oaths to the Lord.' 34 "But I say to you, do not swear at all:
And yet it was God Himself that had told them to swear oaths:
quote:
Deuteronomy 10:20 "You shall fear the LORD your God; you shall serve Him, and to Him you shall hold fast, and take oaths in His name.
So what is going on here? Doesn't it make sense that the God revealed to Moses wasn't as clear a picture of God as the one that Jesus revealed? It was still the same God - but the rules changed because God reveals Himself progressively as people are prepared to receive Him.

This was clearly true in the case of Abraham. Jehovah said to Moses:
quote:
Exodus 6:3 I (Jehovah) appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, as God Shaddai; and by My name Jehovah was I not known to them.
Why was He Shaddai? Because Shaddai was the name of God - an idol - that Abraham was familiar with. God accommodated Himself to Abraham's state, saying and doing things that would make sense to him.

This is in no sense a Gnostic position! This is what Jesus taught. It wasn't a different God, just an incomplete and imperfect version of Him.

To me this completely explains why Joshua could legitimately have believed God wished him to wipe out the Canaanites. The "angel of Jehovah" did tell him this, and God did not prevent it, for the sake of the long run benefit of humanity.

One thing that no one has mentioned is that in the Joshua account, Joshua only actually attacked Jericho and Ai. All the other battles were initiated by the enemy. This is true in Judges as well. It's not an important point, but it is curious that in the vast majority of the cases Israel was only defending itself. Not that this really helps.
 
Posted by Tuggboat (# 7001) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
quote:
Originally posted by Tuggboat:
Groups around the worldare using the original posts argument in interesting and novel ways...<snip>

This is all over generalized and my own take on it but we should equip ourselves with some basic defensive logic. Who knows maybe Hitler himself started this to destroy Christianity.
Excuse me?

How on earth did you get that from the OP? I should know what I was talking about, after all. I did write the thing.

I think my actual difficulty with the genocidal passages - and frankly, I think the systematic destruction of a people group and their associated culture from the face of the earth falls into a pretty complete defintion of genocide, actually - is how this squares with the dire threats directed against those who mistreat foreigners in the Torah and God's own rules for us.
It wasn't a real hard association. I typed genocide Amalekites and some other key words into google and came up with a bunch of special interests using the idea that the Judeo Christian God committed genocide. From there they usually take it to "And Hitler committed genocide" then come to a conclusion that God and Hitler are alike. From there they take the idea that we have a bad God like Hitler to anywhere they want.

Logic
God committed genocide
genocide was committed by Hitler (or name your favorite despot)
Therefore, Favorite despot is like God.

That's the basic reasoning. Truth seems to have created a lie. Something is wrong with that logic wouldn't you agree? If we can destroy the primary premise the secondary premises and false conclusions can't get a foothold in our thinking. See the link I posted above for an amplification of this.

As for the idea that the Amalekites were foreigners They were decendents of Essau whom God hated Mal 1:3
They harrassed, butchered and terrorised the Jews, their wives and children and destroyed even their meager years crops just for fun for several hundred years. Several times they tried to extend the Amalekites mercy but it always came back to get them. This was not an unprovoked attack on innocents. After many options were tried completely wiping them out was the only one left that had any hope of stopping them.
quote:


His own standards. He becomes less than God; flawed; imperfect; and all by His own standard of integrity. God's moral character does not change, right? But surely, by creating an hypocrisy in the character of God, we - paradoxically, since the argument weighs heavily on the character of God's divinity - strip Him of His divinity.

You may be surprised to know that this makes me uneasy.
By him doing this he was able to show the Jews Justice and keep his promise. That is a divine thing. It is Justice and Mercy not Justice or Mercy

Wives and children will continue to avenge the death of their father. The Amalekites had proven this before when they took in the survivors. After killing the whole warrior class this time, the women and children would have been left in the desert to starve. This time they had to all go. By ending their lives quickly he showed mercy toward them and justice for the Jews at the same time.

He his divine, he is not a hypocrit, He is Just, He is merciful, who knows what they really deserved. I would guess more than they got for messing with God's chosen ones.

A lot of this is in the this Link which is the same as I posted above
 
Posted by Tuggboat (# 7001) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jon Doe:
Umm, tuggboat, should that link have been

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/rbutcher1.html

(it didn't work originally for me as your link had two http's)

thanks for the link, will have a read once I have more time

jon
Thats the first time I tried this. Thanks
 
Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :
 
Just a quick comment on the Amalekites link. I read this link some time ago when it was posted on another discussion forum. In fact I read it three times as I couldn't believe just how brazen the author was being the first time and I wanted to be sure that I wasn't missing some hidden depths!

All I can say is it just goes to show the preposterous lengths people will go to to justify a view in a pernicious, brutal, inconsistent God just because they think that the Bible demands that they do so. Talk about squaring circles. If this is a indicative of the tortuous logic and denial of any empathy with people in the past, that being a Christian requires of us, then I am off to look for another religion.

Luigi
 
Posted by hermit (# 1803) on :
 
Thanks for the excellent and thorough link, Tuggboat.

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by hermit:
quote:
Freddy: But He was not God Himself - the God that emerges from the teachings of the Old Testament as a whole.
Well, that's gnostic and I suppose Swedenborg must have agreed with the gnostic position. I don't get any impression at all from the words of Jesus that the OT God was a lesser god, and that Jesus came obeying some newer and greater God whose teachings completely overturned the old.
It's not gnostic. It's not that Jesus said that the God of the OT was a lesser God, but that the impression of God needed correction.

Jesus did not completely overturn the definition of God. He did, however, change the things that God had said to Israel ....

This is in no sense a Gnostic position! This is what Jesus taught. It wasn't a different God, just an incomplete and imperfect version of Him.

To me this completely explains why Joshua could legitimately have believed God wished him to wipe out the Canaanites. The "angel of Jehovah" did tell him this, and God did not prevent it, for the sake of the long run benefit of humanity.

One thing that no one has mentioned is that in the Joshua account, Joshua only actually attacked Jericho and Ai. All the other battles were initiated by the enemy. This is true in Judges as well. It's not an important point, but it is curious that in the vast majority of the cases Israel was only defending itself. Not that this really helps.
These are good points, and I don't have a problem with the idea of progressive revelation or changing rules or even that Joshua might have THOUGHT God wanted him to kill when it was actually his own desire and the tribe's (I don't buy the idea that an angel would do anything God didn't command, although I realize there was some confusion about which was God and which was angel because the names could be identical). My point is simply that it's not IMPOSSIBLE that God could have directly ordered killings, and in view of the fact that such a large portion of the OT is in the plainest sense about killings ordered in one way or another by God, often for breaking commandments, it's safest to accept the traditional interpretations - the ones that accept it pretty much at face value. Believe it or not, I'll be very relieved if I make to heaven and am corrected on the matter!

One thing I worry about is that some people might be wishing to undercut the authority of the OT (and the NT verses which support them) because they find some commandments to be unacceptable or inconvenient. I suppose the really hotbutton issue that is known by everyone is that homosexuality is forbidden in the OT (and that's affirmed in Paul's writings as well as Revelation). And yet modern popular culture insists not only that it's not a sin, but that it's a positive virtue to obey your body's every fleshly desire - thus we have the spectacle of an openly gay man who preaches the virtue of his relationship, becoming elected to the office of bishop. And so there's a clash between OT commandments and new popular morality concerning this and other moral standards .... I think that may have a lot to do with the general stance of this website especially at the home site, which seems to be to undercut the authority of the OT in deciding any moral issues, and even to mock it in some ways such as the Biblical curse generator (I'm assuming that's still there, haven't visited the main site in a while).

It may be that God just doesn't care about whom we have sex with or whether we covet the neighbor's ass anymore, but I choose to stay faithful to what we've been given rather than blithely assuming it doesn't matter anymore or was probably never even commanded by God. I realize what I've just said isn't behind EVERYONE's distrust of the authorship of OT books, some have become discouraged by lists of apparent contradictions and mistakes, but I think that wanting to legitimize forbidden things is behind a lot of efforts to discredit the OT, Paul, etc.
 
Posted by Little Weed (# 4402) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Why do you think I think you are not confronting the God of the OT? How could you possibly think, infer, deduce that I regard violence and killing as stronger than love? Nothing is stronger than love. God is love. Love who kills to attain its end.
Then you are using a completely different definition / understanding of the word love from me. Violence and killing are what human beings do. Look at the cross: Jesus is killed by man and asks his father to forgive those who are doing it.

quote:
Do I conclude that you are a liberal rationalist and God is NOT as He reveals Himself in the Bronze Age? Therefore your confrontation is with fundamentalist inerrantists like myself?
I don’t know what you mean by a liberal rationalist but my dictionary suggests secular humanism. Hm. I’m trying to be a Christian but I am aware that my views put me beyond the pale according to the standards of others.

quote:
Do you accept that God is accurately revealed as a killer and take exception to Him, therefore you confront Him? As Abraham and Moses did and we all should? How long, oh Lord?
I confront what is said in the bible, the whole of it. I believe that God is the same yesterday, today and for ever but humans, whether it’s Joshua or us today, all see through a glass darkly. I have great admiration for the ancient writers but I don’t think any of them ever intended their writings to be treated as accurate journalistic accounts. They are far too complex and multi-layered for that. Nor do I believe that God in some miraculous way ensured that everyone mentioned in the bible understood his thoughts and actions perfectly. I have a strong suspicion that if we could interview Joshua today he wouldn’t be as literal either as inerrant fundamentalists.

Trusting in God, Joshua believed this was what God wanted but he had a limited understanding. He didn’t know any way other than violence. He believe his God was greater than all the other gods therefore his God must be mightier in battle, must want his people to have the best land and therefore must want them to kill to get it even though he had ordered them in the Mosaic law not to kill. I read the rest of the OT and see that the killing didn’t actually work. I look at the Middle East today and I see that the continuing killing still doesn’t work. I look at the suffering God on the cross and I see that it is only love that conquers all and there is no place within the word love for killing. Killing is what humans do, not God.
 
Posted by Peppone (# 3855) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by hermit:
I think that may have a lot to do with the general stance of this website especially at the home site, which seems to be to undercut the authority of the OT in deciding any moral issues, and even to mock it in some ways such as the Biblical curse generator.

I think this thing about the curse generator is a bit of a reach. How does that tell you anything about the attitude of the SoF home page creators and editors?

As for using the OT as a guide to moral issues- to me, the OT story as a whole is steeped in grace and compassion and mercy and love, with all its admonitions to treat the alien with mercy and welcome the stranger and cancel debts...(it's your NT that raises the stakes and gets scary)...which is why the Joshua story seems to contradict the rest of it.
 
Posted by Zeke (# 3271) on :
 
Hermit, are you indeed saying that you adhere to every single OT commandment? If not, how do you decide which ones you think are important and which ones are not?
 
Posted by sanc (# 6355) on :
 
a lot of people today would like to disect the bible, highlighting that this account is just a myth, that one never happened, this writer's account is not a journalistic account. if the bible can be thus dissected, it renders the bible as a mixture of truth and untruth, and it makes it a doubtful book of GOD's revelation. if the dissecting goes on, we may someday put the bible side by side the work of homer. i think the bible is an inspired writing. when writers are inspired by GOD to write something, it should be taken seriously and branded as truth.


GOD uses many ways to judge the wicked, by fire like sodom, by flood during noah's time, by foriegn army like babylon to its neighboring countries, and the controversial one: through HIS chosen people israel. GOD said we should not judge, this also means that when HE judge, we should take HIS judgement as just and one abounding in love. the wickedness of people defiles the dignity of humanity to the effect that they are comparable to the beast of the jungle. there every action and intentions of their hearts fuels their sinful way of life. and theres not even a 5 among them who are righteous enough to avert the judgement.
so GOD's judgement: complete extermination of their existence. coming from a just GOD, i have no qualms with that.
 
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by hermit:
No, by my definition there can NEVER be a murder by God's will, since the ancient Hebrew word for "murder" is defined as killing a human aside from God's will. But a killing or genocide could certainly be the best way of bringing about the results desired.
Semantic point taken and I have a real problem with that. Ideas like "ethnic cleansing" come to mind.

quote:

2. Just to be clear about the official Catholic stance, it's that Holy Scripture is entirely inspired by God (although some Catholic scholars dissent on that), but that it must be interpreted properly in terms of the culture and language of those times,
I would choose those words exactly to describe my own biblical hermenutic. (Although I don't know exactly what practicing Catholics these days consider that to mean if we unpack that sentence. I have a good idea what a lot of RC academic theologians meant by it it the mid-1970s when I studied theology at a Roman Catholic university.)

I don't think that is a "liberal" heremenutic nor do I think it's an inerrantist one.

quote:
and that it's all too easy for those who take a "private interpretation" of Scripture to impose their own values in their interpretation .... which is what I was getting at when I've insisted to Psyduck among others, that Jesus wasn't a modern liberal college professor.
Well, in terms of "private interpretations", I'm not a Roman Catholic. My own tradition - British Methodism - has a 200+ year tradition of people interpreting scripture to mean that God is against genocide, murder and war. So I stand squarely inside my own tradition. I will respectfully dissent from any British Methodists who believes that God may order a civilisation to be annhiliated in order to achieve his purposes.

I still resist the use of the word "liberal" until that word is unpacked. The little ditty about anyone who is more liberal than me is a liberal is basically correct. In my sojourns in Protestant inerrantist churches, attending some theology courses, people were always setting themselves in opposition to 19th century liberalism. And honestly, in mainstream Protestant churches, there aren't a lot of 19th century liberals around. Most of us are walking a middle path with a living faith in a Living God whether our conservative brothers and sisters want to recognise that our not. If conservatives are on a mission to change our minds - and all the conservative churches I attended claimed that they wanted to "convert" mainstream Christians to "real Christianity" - then conservatives had better learn what we actually believe. Arguing against 19th century liberalism doesn't convince us because most of us don't believe in 19th century liberalism either (although I'm sure there are some people who do).
 
Posted by Cheesy* (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jon Doe:
Umm, tuggboat, should that link have been

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/rbutcher1.html

(it didn't work originally for me as your link had two http's)

thanks for the link, will have a read once I have more time

jon
Oh goodie. The lifeboat ethics problem means

quote:

that the swift death of the innocents, in the context of a certain and much-more-suffering death in the desert, was the most merciful and least tragic course of action.
I'm sorry, ethics determined by the lifeboat thesis are not worth the paper they are written on. If I was in a classroom where this was discussed, I would refuse to participate.

More to the point, the great danger of this philosophy is that you begin to apply it to the sick, the mentally ill and/or the disabled, deciding that they are 'weighing down' the rest of society.

[Mad]

C
 
Posted by Zeke (# 3271) on :
 
There is more than one way for something to be true.
 
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
All I can say is it just goes to show the preposterous lengths people will go to to justify a view in a pernicious, brutal, inconsistent God just because they think that the Bible demands that they do so. Talk about squaring circles. If this is a indicative of the tortuous logic and denial of any empathy with people in the past, that being a Christian requires of us, then I am off to look for another religion.
I agree wholeheartedly.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
Sanc, you wrote:
quote:
a lot of people today would like to disect the bible, highlighting that this account is just a myth, that one never happened, this writer's account is not a journalistic account. if the bible can be thus dissected, it renders the bible as a mixture of truth and untruth, and it makes it a doubtful book of GOD's revelation. if the dissecting goes on, we may someday put the bible side by side the work of homer. i think the bible is an inspired writing. when writers are inspired by GOD to write something, it should be taken seriously and branded as truth.
Well, I suppose that's the "thin end of the wedge" argument, and I can see why it makes some people uneasy. But, underlying these arguments are assumptions about what the Bible is for . Is it an unambiguous rule-book, declaring definitive truth forever, or is it a book where we encounter the Living God. Now I'll grant you that it could be both, and a great many sincere and holy people believe this to be the case. But, in the words of the song "It ain't necessarily so." I would contend that it can be the second, and not the first, and still maintain all its' power and authority. Why is it better than, say, Homer? Because (in the context of "historical" accounts) it is a real record of a real encounter between real people and a real God. It ca n be all that without being inerrant.

This brings to mind something that was troubling LatePaul
quote:
my problem now is this God is so feckless a communicator that he allows such a gross distortion of his real character to stand as the authoritative revelation of who he is for hundreds of years. Even when a better, clearer revelation appears in the form of Jesus, this God apparently refuses to negate or at least modify the earlier text. Although what Jesus says appears inconsistent with Joshua, he claims to fully support it as Scripture.
There is, indeed, a problem if we regard Scripture as inerrant, forensic truth. But I am not convinced this is what God's intention ever was, nor am I persuaded that Jesus, whose interpretive technique would cause much blushing amongst inerrantist Bible school professors, regarded it as such.

BTW, what is it about us westerners, that we want to oppose myth and truth, as if the former was inferior to, rather than an expression of, the latter. I've always believed that facts tell you what, and myth tells you, or at least leads you to, why.
 
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :
 
2 things

1) What Cheesy said. In that post a few posts ago that he thought about in church. [just pauses for a few minutes while thinking about what has just happened. Breathes deeply]

2) I am getting dlightly annoyed at the way people are using this thread to make slightly snide and intellectually superior comments about "inerrantists" and "inerrantism" as a whole, in the full knowledge that no one who holds that view (whatever it is taken to mean by those who are so kindly writing it off) can actually respond without getting bounced all the way to the glue factory. So could you stop it please? Thanks.
 
Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
2 things

1) What Cheesy said. In that post a few posts ago that he thought about in church. [just pauses for a few minutes while thinking about what has just happened. Breathes deeply]
What, even the last couple lines of his post? Are you sure?

Tuggboat:

As far as I can see, the only person here who's brought up the "God=Hitler" argument is you.

In the Old Testament, God orders the Israelites to commit more than one act of genocide. These are acts of genocide by pretty exact definitions, and all. That's undeniable. To point out that fact - fact, mind- is not - repeat not - tantamount to equating God with Hitler or Stalin, no matter how much you might want it to be.

Let's call a spade a spade here. To refer to the complete and systematic destruction of a culture and ethnic group as anything other than genocide is sophistry. I'm sorry, but there it is.

Besides, people seem to be getting confused about who actually does it - it's the Israelites that do it. No one here seems to be upbraiding the Almighty for the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, which He did Himself (and we have to assume that innocent babies died there, too - and before you go "ah, no, God didn't find anyone innocent," allow me to point out that Abraham asked if God could find a number of innocent men - not women, not children).

And we're all aware that "God told me to do it" is no more of an admissable excuse than "the Devil made me do it" or "I was just following orders". The sin - if sin it was - was committed by the Israelites, albeit (and here's the sticking point) under God's command. Did they feel bad about doing it? Scripture doesn't say, but given the course of Middle Eastern history in the Bronze Age, I very much doubt that they did.

I repeat: the problem is less the genocide per se and more that God not only allowed the Israelites to do it, but in fact ordered it, thus commanding the Israelites to sin.

Incidentally, hermit's analogy with the mother telling her kid not to play with matches doesn't wash - if the analogy were accurate, it would be tantamount to the mother saying "don't play with matches - except for the ones in this box here. You can burn your fingers all you like on those".

Now it may well be - and let's for the sake of argument assume that the story is true - that it was indeed the only way peace could result, and that it was a reasonable way to wage war.

Likewise, the rationalisation I got from Saint Augustine sugests that while God's moral character does not change, culture does, and that therefore what the Israelites did was - again - a culturally acceptable way of waging war in the Bronze Age Middle East. Well, maybe.

But none of this adequately covers the discomfort most of us feel at reading the passage. I don't think it's one I'm ever going to resolve, frankly.

[ 12. July 2004, 09:06: Message edited by: Wood ]
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
Me neither. I echo Luigi's post from earlier; I also refer back to my 1984 illustration before; what Hermit and Sanc and Lep want me to do is to see five fingers because God commands it; yet there are quite clearly and distinctly four.

Two and two make four, and even if God Himself insists they make five, they still make four.
 
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
2 things

1) What Cheesy said. In that post a few posts ago that he thought about in church. [just pauses for a few minutes while thinking about what has just happened. Breathes deeply]
What, even the last couple lines of his post? Are you sure?
Well, I think so. But I maybe don't understand what he means. God showing us a better way for us to be dealt with by him - yes I think so. But maybe that's not what he means.

Wood, I've re-read your OP and your last post, and its only now that I actually understand what your problem with the passages is. So sorry if I have been blathering irrelevant rubbish to your OP. I'll now go and think about the actual question you are asking. [Hot and Hormonal]
 
Posted by Cheesy* (# 3330) on :
 
I kinda liked the idea of God realising he had made a mistake - that an eye for an eye just makes the whole world blind - and coming and sorting it out.

It doesn't fit with any of my other ideas about God, but it is a comforting idea.

C
 
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Cheesy*:
I kinda liked the idea of God realising he had made a mistake - that an eye for an eye just makes the whole world blind - and coming and sorting it out.

It doesn't fit with any of my other ideas about God, but it is a comforting idea.

C
Right then. I had misunderstood. But I liked the rest.

At least I am now back in normal universe, where I disagree with Cheesy per se. [Biased]
 
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
I repeat: the problem is less the genocide per se and more that God not only allowed the Israelites to do it, but in fact ordered it, thus commanding the Israelites to sin.
This is the problem I have with it, too. The objections that God and killing are incompatible don't sit, for me, with the observed fact that every human we've ever known has either died or will die. You can either throw out God's omnipotence from your personal scheme of theology (I don't throw it out) or draw some conclusions.

No, the problem is in the apparent commandment to do it. When Jesus overrules the divorce bit of the Law, he says it was only permitted because of the hardness of hearts - permitted mind, not ordered. I think the genocides if they happened as recorded, were permitted in a similar way, not commanded.

quote:
But none of this adequately covers the discomfort most of us feel at reading the passage. I don't think it's one I'm ever going to resolve, frankly.
Maybe that's its purpose.
 
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Cheesy*:
I kinda liked the idea of God realising he had made a mistake - that an eye for an eye just makes the whole world blind - and coming and sorting it out.

It doesn't fit with any of my other ideas about God, but it is a comforting idea.
Comforting in what way?

I'm more comforted by the thought that the Incarnation was God's plan from the start, that an eye for an eye was a progressive moral development from exterminating a family for stealing a loaf of bread, and that God doesn't make mistakes.
 
Posted by Cheesy* (# 3330) on :
 
Because otherwise I am left with alternatives I don't like.

Either God is a monster (and he doesn't change), the OT is seriously flawed (in which case largely useless) or God changes his mind. Personally, I'd rather go with God changing his mind.

C
 
Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
quote:
But none of this adequately covers the discomfort most of us feel at reading the passage. I don't think it's one I'm ever going to resolve, frankly.
Maybe that's its purpose.
If that were its purpose, surely there would have been a significant body of writing on this subject before the modern age?
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
surely there would have been a significant body of writing on this subject before the modern age?
Was there? Do we have evidence of Christians having a problem trying to reconcile genocide with God before, say, 1700?

And if we do, do any of them comne up with any other argument than the potter-clay one?
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
I suppose the really hotbutton issue that is known by everyone is that homosexuality is forbidden in the OT (and that's affirmed in Paul's writings as well as Revelation). And yet modern popular culture insists not only that it's not a sin, but that it's a positive virtue to obey your body's every fleshly desire - thus we have the spectacle of an openly gay man who preaches the virtue of his relationship, becoming elected to the office of bishop.
Hermit - put that half-boiled-down old nag back in the rendering vessel immediately and wash your hands!
 
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
2) I am getting dlightly annoyed at the way people are using this thread to make slightly snide and intellectually superior comments about "inerrantists" and "inerrantism" as a whole, in the full knowledge that no one who holds that view (whatever it is taken to mean by those who are so kindly writing it off) can actually respond without getting bounced all the way to the glue factory. So could you stop it please? Thanks.
If this is in reference to me (I'm assuming that it is since I think I'm the only one who is using the word "inerrantism"), then could people equally stop telling the rest of us about "liberal rationalism" and writing off everyone who doesn't agree with them as "liberal rationalists"?
 
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
quote:
If this is in reference to me (I'm assuming that it is since I think I'm the only one who is using the word "inerrantism"), then could people equally stop telling the rest of us about "liberal rationalism" and writing off everyone who doesn't agree with them as "liberal rationalists"?
Actually, I'm out of this conversation; it's only going around in a circle and I'm getting annoyed at feeling that I'm not "allowed" to voice my objection to having my argument being written off as voiced by someone who doesn't really believe in God (what I understand "liberal rationalist" to mean). [Mad]
 
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
Actually, I'm out of this conversation; it's only going around in a circle and I'm getting annoyed at feeling that I'm not "allowed" to voice my objection to having my argument being written off as voiced by someone who doesn't really believe in God (what I understand "liberal rationalist" to mean).
Gosh, we're all taking our bat and ball home! [Smile] Seeker, I agree with you about the labelling. FWIW, I am absolutely convinced that you are not a liberal rationalist. Let's all agree to stop it.

But please no more swipes about inerrancy, because we can't answer them here!

[ 12. July 2004, 12:57: Message edited by: Leprechaun ]
 
Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 
Can I just point out that people are allowed to post whatever opinions they like in Purgatory, with the following provisos:

1. If it breaks the Ship's 10 Commandments, it is not allowed.

2. If it doesn't break a commandment and it annoys you, you can express your annoyance here, but you will be expected to pursue personal arguments in Hell.

3. If a subject or tangential subject of discussion veers into the territory of our Dead Horse subjects (eg. homosexuality, creation, inerrancy, abortion), you will be expected to pursue it on the appropriate threads in Dead Horses.

Aside from that, it's all permissible. If someone wants to be dismissive of another point of view, it's their prerogative to do so, just as it's the prerogative of everyone else to challenge their assumptions and/or prejudices.

In eight pages, no one has broken any rules on this thread.

Again I say, if you want to call someone to Hell or pick them up on a Dead Horse, you should know by now where to go.
 
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
I have no desire, ever, to go to the Ship of Fools hell. If I wanted to flame and insult people there are plenty of other internet Christian forums I could participate in. I like to discuss ideas and the separation of Purgatory and Hell here seems to be uniquely suitable to that discussion.

Lep, I think that dialogue between different sides of the Christian divide is almost, but not always, impossible. I honestly wasn't trying to take swipes at anyone, I was trying to point out what I see the differences as being. At the risk of sounding childlish, yeah, I got tired of all the "liberal rationalist" and "fluffy God" and "gentle Jesus meak and mild" swipes here and I was trying to say that if you (plural) want to talk to us (plural), then stop telling us what we believe. (By the way, I didn't view you, personally, as having taken any of those swipes.)

I'm still outta this discussion. I don't see it going anywhere productive. It's pretty well circular by now.
 
Posted by Esmeralda (# 582) on :
 
OK. Here's an attempt to get out of the circle:

1. God brings good out of evil. I think we can all agree that this is one meaning of the cross and resurrection. We do not believe Jesus getting crucified was per se a good thing, but we do believe God used it - or we might even say, participated in it - for our salvation. That much is confirmed by the resurrection.

2. Wiping out whole populations is, even if only partly, evil (you might argue that it's good to get rid of an irredeemably corrupt culture, but the indiscriminate nature of the slaughter can hardly be called good.

3. God gives us human beings freedom. That's why there is a choice to make in the Garden of Eden story. One of the things the story says is that we are prone to make the wrong choices.

4. In their human freedom, Joshua and his people wiped out a load of pagans, and/or later writers said they did, and attributed this to the command of God.

5. God, because God allows human freedom, allowed this to happen.

6. However, because it is in the nature of God to bring good out of evil, God used this historical evil (assuming it was historical), to accomplish the following good: that Israel was able to keep its own identity as God's holy people, at least to some extent. God also allowed Israel in exile to preserve these stories as an encouragement to keep to its own identity and religious practices.

7. Later, more good came out of this, in that successive generations took these passages as a message to them about the need to be holy and not to tolerate evil. Unfortunately, successive generations also often used these passages to justify their own genocides (dare I mention 'manifest destiny' and the slaughter of native Americans?). That's human freedom for you. God seems to think it's important.

Any use?
 
Posted by Tuggboat (# 7001) on :
 
quote:
As far as I can see, the only person here who's brought up the "God=Hitler" argument is you.
I brought up the God=Hitler argument because I wanted to inform people that Its being used in anti-Christian circles. If I go out on the street and say "genocide" most will respond Hitler. They do not respond "Stalin" or any other genocide perpetrator. Whats scarey is that most people won't say Joshua or God. Even a neophyte's attempt to use this argument against Christianity will stun their target. It seriously erodes faith in our God and/or Bible as you can see even in your own experience. It could take years to heal. If I hadn't seen the vehement, repugnant and defiant comments about God and the Bible I wouldn't have realized this subjects power to destroy faith and wouldn't have cared about its subliminal vehicle. I am grateful for everyones honest posts on the feeling's this evokes.


quote:
Let's call a spade a spade here. To refer to the complete and systematic destruction of a culture and ethnic group as anything other than genocide is sophistry. I'm sorry, but there it is.
Don't apoligize, after looking up that word. I feel the same way right off the top of my head. But any attempt to say God did not commit genocide that fails to reconcile it fully could fit the definition of sophistry. There are three attacks on the logic possible.

(God) One is that it wasn't God,
(committed)If it was God then he was not the one who committed it or,
(genocide) that what happened wasn't genocide.

Forgive more sophistry?:
We have three definitions of genocide proposed on this board. For the logic argument to finish falling through we have to ask under which defintition this Biblical account falls. And then question whether it is a valid, credible definition.

The word was not coined until 1944 because until then there was no need for a word that until that time was considered "unprecedented". The whole context of the word is centered on the Holocaust which was the destruction of the Jews not their preservation. Out of this context we have the United nations definition:

Article II: In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

As the word has begun to be synonomous with any large massacres its definition has needed expansion to prevent this. Even when the the UN finished this they admitted it wasn't complete. But a definition can evolve with usage and go either way. This must be prevented so that what is stated by International law cannot be thrwarted by word games.

The page I sited noted many scholarly references that continue to define the concepts of groups and search for the criminal common denominator that exists in real genocide versus acts of war.

The Fire bombing of Dresden comes to mind. The allies decimated that city and its residents to rubble. Under a loose defintion one could claim we exterminated the Dresdenites. These new definitions come from men with good credentials.

If you don't mind me asking, what is the source for your defintion Wood? I can't find it in dictionaries. The only place it has turned up in almost your exact words was a Hindu site and they are not above war and mass killing as many adherants would claim. All my dictionary reference point back to the UN Definition.

I realize this is more sophistry. My real belief is that you will find peace when the entire Amalekite story is understood in its full context. As more of this struck me the phrase "Vengence is mine sayeth the Lord." This sounds wacko out of context also but It often comes to mind when I am attacked or provoked by others. It is a steady rock I lean on when I want to retaliate. I know I don't have to. There will be justice in the end and I just trust it to God. Believe it or not I don't have to attack back. Though love for my enemy is still a little further down the spiritual road I'm on my way once the fear of injustice passes. Perhaps I can even save them from their fate. [Smile] Even this story can work for good, if one loves the Lord. This story will require great love unfortunately.

If we're going to judge God we should try it from the angle of how would we judge someone who we loved greatly if they had done the same thing. Perhaps a war vet comes to mind. Have you ever heard confession of men at war? Their prayers and their confusion when they are spared? How bout if it was a close family member brutally retalliating to save his own life. If saved by another would we condemn the person who wiped out the attackers and saved this loved one.

So it was with Israel. they and their seed held the only hope of our future salvation. He loved them and He loved us enough to pay any cost, even our future disloyalty. Better to be saved and disloyal than not to be saved at all. This carries a burden for us almost as great as the Cross when I imagine it and I have not seen this explanation anywhere else but it leads me to love him even more rather than less.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Esmeralda:
OK. Here's an attempt to get out of the circle:
Excellent. I think you have done it. [Overused]

I especially like that this retains the holiness and truth of God's Word, because God specifically allowed the events to be described the way they were. It is not just "those maverick and deluded Bible writers."

But it does not make God the author of evil acts.

I think the key in what you said is that God brings good out of evil.

Thank you. [Biased]
 
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tuggboat:
The Fire bombing of Dresden comes to mind. The allies decimated that city and its residents to rubble. Under a loose defintion one could claim we exterminated the Dresdenites.
Small grammatical tangent:

"Decimate" means to kill one in ten of the target population. Colloquially, it means to kill a large proportion of the target population. You can only decimate people (or, I suppose, animals), not inanimate objects such as cities.

End tangent.

John

[fixed quote bold]

[ 13. July 2004, 06:27: Message edited by: Duo Seraphim ]
 
Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tuggboat:
quote:
As far as I can see, the only person here who's brought up the "God=Hitler" argument is you.
I brought up the God=Hitler argument because I wanted to inform people that it's being used in anti-Christian circles.
Well, all right. And fair do's to you that you want to combat it.

But the point is, you can't argue from the starting point that the acts of Joshua as presented in Scripture (which acts may or may not have been permitted and/or ordered by God) were not genocidal. Because they were.

You can defend them; you can can argue from all sorts of standpoints; but what you can't do is deny its reality. An apologetic has to be founded on some sort of truth.

quote:
Don't apologize, after looking up that word. I feel the same way right off the top of my head. But any attempt to say God did not commit genocide that fails to reconcile it fully could fit the definition of sophistry. There are three attacks on the logic possible.
But I'm saying that Joshua committed genocide, in the story at God's behest. God may have committed the act vis à vis the Flood and Sodom, but that's God's prerogative (hence no one has objected to those).

The problem is not that God did it. The problem is that God is presented as having told the Israelites to do it. It's not the act that causes the problems; it's God commanding the Israelites to commit what looks very much like a sin.

A recap:

1. The Israelites commit genocide in the Bible.
2. If the story as presented is correct, they do it at the command of God.
4. This creates more problems than God simply taking things into his own hands, because:
8. It means that God is ordering the Israelites to break the rules that He has set for them;
16. ...because if that is the case, God is inconsistent;
32. ...and since God is generally regarded as being possessed of an unchanging moral character as a divine attribute, this would mean that God is not divine, and therefore not God.
64. Theologically, this has worrying implications.
128. Therefore, we're trying to make some sense of it.
quote:

(God) One is that it wasn't God,
(committed)If it was God then he was not the one who committed it or,
(genocide) that what happened wasn't genocide.
I don't understand why you're trying so hard not to use the "g" word.

It was the Israelites. God may have ordered it. Still genocide, though.

quote:
Forgive more sophistry?:
We have three definitions of genocide proposed on this board. For the logic argument to finish falling through we have to ask under which defintition this Biblical account falls. And then question whether it is a valid, credible definition.
<snip>
Article II: In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;
How does the annihilation of the Canaanites not fall within that category?
quote:

If you don't mind me asking, what is the source for your defintion Wood? I can't find it in dictionaries.
Really? I find that very odd.

Because, just going to good old dictionary.com, I get this:

quote:
From Dictionary.com's reference for "genocide":
The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group.
...as per Houghton-Mifflin and Merriam-Webster.

Meanwhile, the online version of the Cambridge Dictionary gives it as:
quote:
genocide noun [U]
the murder of a whole group of people, especially a whole nation, race or religious group:
victims of genocide
...and the Longman web dictionary gives:
quote:
genocide noun [uncountable]
the deliberate murder of a whole group or race of people
...which is a bit more morally coloured, but still useful.

I am, frankly, surprised. I'd have thought the use of the word "genocide" uncontroversial.

quote:
I realize this is more sophistry. My real belief is that you will find peace when the entire Amalekite story is understood in its full context.
You see, I think I get the context. Context has never really been a problem with me.

quote:
As more of this struck me the phrase "Vengence is mine sayeth the Lord."
If vengeance is God's, why does He get the Israelites to do it, when he can quite easily do it on His own (cf. Flood, Sodom)?

quote:
There will be justice in the end and I just trust it to God.
But this just shows you don't get the point. God may have ordered it, but it was the Israelites who did it. By following the example of the Amalekite story (for example), all you get is the distinct impression that it's God's followers who are going to be dispensing God's justice.

And you wonder why I'm not at peace with that?

It's like that awful, awful chorus with the second verse that ends:

quote:
At His name, God's enemies
Will be crushed beneath our feet
I refuse to sing that one these days.

quote:
Even this story can work for good, if one loves the Lord. This story will require great love unfortunately.
How? How? HOW? For crying out loud, HOW?

That's the whole problem. How can it be a force for good?

quote:
If we're going to judge God...
Whoa. How are we judging God? We're judging Scripture in the light of Scripture. As in, God tells the Israelites to do one thing, and then the opposite in a difficult context.

quote:
So it was with Israel. they and their seed held the only hope of our future salvation. He loved them and He loved us enough to pay any cost, even our future disloyalty. Better to be saved and disloyal than not to be saved at all. This carries a burden for us almost as great as the Cross when I imagine it and I have not seen this explanation anywhere else but it leads me to love him even more rather than less.
It's nice that it helps you, but I have to say it makes no sense to me whatsoever.

[ 12. July 2004, 19:35: Message edited by: Wood ]
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
It's nice that it helps you, but I have to say it makes no sense to me whatsoever.
Me too. [Paranoid]

Thanks for editing the post. I was quite confused.

Anyway, I'd love to read your thoughts on Esmerelda's solution.
 
Posted by LatePaul (# 7562) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
it is a real record of a real encounter between real people and a real God. It ca n be all that without being inerrant.
But the 'real God' it describes is really horrible - that's the problem, not inerrancy. (btw I wouldn't call myself an inerrantist)

quote:
This brings to mind something that was troubling LatePaul
quote:
my problem now is this God is so feckless a communicator that he allows such a gross distortion of his real character to stand as the authoritative revelation of who he is for hundreds of years. Even when a better, clearer revelation appears in the form of Jesus, this God apparently refuses to negate or at least modify the earlier text. Although what Jesus says appears inconsistent with Joshua, he claims to fully support it as Scripture.
There is, indeed, a problem if we regard Scripture as inerrant, forensic truth.

I'd've thought it was a problem for people with a far wider range of views of Scripture than that. Anyone who believes that this passage says anything about the nature of God has got to somehow deal with the superficial meaning which says - in some circumstances God orders genocide. Even if that statement is not literally true - the fact that such a statement is made at all, given how extreme it is, needs to be explained. Such a statement has a huge impact whether we are meant to take it as literal historical fact or a myth revealing an important truth.

quote:
But I am not convinced this is what God's intention ever was, nor am I persuaded that Jesus, whose interpretive technique would cause much blushing amongst inerrantist Bible school professors, regarded it as such.
2 genuine questions -

1) What do you think God's intention was with the book of Joshua?

2) What interpretive technique allows us to take such a clear meaning and state the exact opposite whilst still upholding the validity of the text?

quote:
BTW, what is it about us westerners, that we want to oppose myth and truth, as if the former was inferior to, rather than an expression of, the latter.
I don't have a problem with myth. I think it's a very valuable form of literature. However the problem here is not whether we're dealing with myth or fact - it's calling something evil good. If this is a mythical story, it's still a story about a monstrous God.

quote:
I've always believed that facts tell you what, and myth tells you, or at least leads you to, why.
But surely the "why" is exactly the problem here? This story gives a reason for genocide that many of us find unacceptable and I suspect all find at least uncomfortable - namely God ordered it.

Now we may say that part of the mythical quality is that the story is about other things - God making a place for his people, being utterly against idolatry, whatever - and that the genocide-as-god's-will aspect is a distortion brought in by human telling of the tale. But it's such a distortion and the issue of genocide is so terrible, that it over-shadows, drowns out or taints those other meanings. That's why I say it makes God a feckless communicator.

I had a friend who was learning to be a preacher. I remember one of his early sermons - he used a yapping, annoying dog as a metaphor for, IIRC, habitual sin - then towards the end of the sermon he said something like "the problem with many of us is that we're content to put a collar and leash on it when what we really need to do is [dramatic pause] kill the dog!" There was an audible gasp and you knew he'd immediately lost several dog-loving members of the congregation who'd been imagining some cute little puppy. Killing a dog was so anathema to them that they couldn't see past the horror of that to whatever point my friend was trying to make.

Now we laughed about it later and teased him mercilessly [Biased] but imagine if he'd used the Holocaust as a metaphor. Imagine if he'd said it in such a way that it wasn't entirely clear it was a metaphor. Imagine if his words were affirmed throughout centuries of church history as inspired by God - i.e. I can't just say that it was inappropriate and/or wrong, I need to find the sense in which it's "useful for teaching, correcting and training in righteousness"
 
Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 
You asked for it, Freddy.

quote:
Originally posted by Esmeralda:
OK. Here's an attempt to get out of the circle:

1. God brings good out of evil. I think we can all agree that this is one meaning of the cross and resurrection. We do not believe Jesus getting crucified was per se a good thing, but we do believe God used it - or we might even say, participated in it - for our salvation. That much is confirmed by the resurrection.
Yep.

quote:
2. Wiping out whole populations is, even if only partly, evil (you might argue that it's good to get rid of an irredeemably corrupt culture, but the indiscriminate nature of the slaughter can hardly be called good).
Still with you.

quote:
3. God gives us human beings freedom. That's why there is a choice to make in the Garden of Eden story. One of the things the story says is that we are prone to make the wrong choices.
Yep. Still on the same page.

quote:
4. In their human freedom, Joshua and his people wiped out a load of pagans, and/or later writers said they did, and attributed this to the command of God.
But my problem isn't whether they actually were commanded to by God, it's that the story says that they were. I've been working within the framework of the narrative, since, notwithstanding ex post facto rationalisations* - like Augustine's, like this one - it's all we've got to go on, and it's the narrative, not the truth of the matter, that's the sticking point.

Even if you could show me evidence that it didn't happen this way, it wouldn't change the fact that the narrative depicts it thus.

quote:
5. God, because God allows human freedom, allowed this to happen.
See reply to point 4.

quote:
6. However, because it is in the nature of God to bring good out of evil, God used this historical evil (assuming it was historical), to accomplish the following good: that Israel was able to keep its own identity as God's holy people, at least to some extent. God also allowed Israel in exile to preserve these stories as an encouragement to keep to its own identity and religious practices.
Well, yes. But again, see point 4, and see the OP.

quote:
7. Later, more good came out of this, in that successive generations took these passages as a message to them about the need to be holy and not to tolerate evil. Unfortunately, successive generations also often used these passages to justify their own genocides (dare I mention 'manifest destiny' and the slaughter of native Americans?). That's human freedom for you. God seems to think it's important.
Aaaaaaand I'm back on your page.

__________________
*Love that term.

[ 12. July 2004, 20:23: Message edited by: Wood ]
 
Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LatePaul:

I'd've thought it was a problem for people with a far wider range of views of Scripture than that. Anyone who believes that this passage says anything about the nature of God has got to somehow deal with the superficial meaning which says - in some circumstances God orders genocide. Even if that statement is not literally true - the fact that such a statement is made at all, given how extreme it is, needs to be explained. Such a statement has a huge impact whether we are meant to take it as literal historical fact or a myth revealing an important truth.
...and this is precisely what my beef is with the passage. Only much better put.
 
Posted by Tuggboat (# 7001) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
quote:
Originally posted by Tuggboat:
The Fire bombing of Dresden comes to mind. The allies decimated that city and its residents to rubble. Under a loose defintion one could claim we exterminated the Dresdenites.
Small grammatical tangent:

"Decimate" means to kill one in ten of the target population. Colloquially, it means to kill a large proportion of the target population. You can only decimate people (or, I suppose, animals), not inanimate objects such as cities.

End tangent.

John
Well that fully explains why Dresden was never termed a genocide. Dresden Tangent pics It fit the definition of Holocaust though. Ritual sacrifice by fire.

[fixed quote bold]

[ 13. July 2004, 06:29: Message edited by: Duo Seraphim ]
 
Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :
 
Late Paul and Wood - your questions are exactly the questions that bothered me. Indeed they bothered me for a long time. Unlike you Wood - if I understand you correctly - I couldn’t just live with them not being answered. These questions became the decisive issue for whether I stuck with my Christian faith or not. I spent a good five years looking for some sort of answer and every single answer I came across was such a blatant squaring of circles that I nearly gave up.

And this is exactly the reason I recommended the book I did - psyduck has also read some of the Girardian thinking that in the end dealt with this issue for me.

I think that you have to step outside what is basically an evangelical ‘received text’ approach to the Bible, if you are to answer this question.

I believe that it is Biblical to 'go against the text'. This is part of the Jewish tradition and this is exactly what Jesus did at times. In other words we can come to the conclusion that there are parts of the Bible where what it says of God is wrong. Many OT scholars would agree with this, but for me that left the question of what the leitmotif that is the engine for the forward momentum within the OT actually is. Unless we can discover this the Bible is just a very confusing, misleading book.

The next question after this is, of course, has this leitmotif been visible for all people groups since the beginning of human history?

You see, in many ways the violence in the OT isn't unusual at all. It tells of violence that is often divinely sanctioned or committed - there is little difference between the two as they reflect just different stages in the myth making process – what might be called sacrificial logic.

As many anthropologists will point out - many ancient people had founding stories where extreme violence is attributed directly to God - just as the OT does - or where God demands extreme violence. These may be attempts at post violence justification. Or vain attempts to raise the ante - so that God is persuaded to beat up one's enemies, ensure good harvests etc. Such an absolutist approach to war in many ways suggests an act that is a quasi human sacrifice on a massive scale.

What is most unique about the OT is the fact that it tells the story of a people who slowly and very imperfectly are moving away from a punitive understanding of God towards a view of God who can't be bought off. A god who sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. Because it tells of this journey it is well and truly ensnared in this thinking for much of the story. I would suggest that the superstitious elements, the misogynistic passages, the demands for incredibly scrupulous ritualistic practices all come from the same underlying direction. As I said what I couldn’t work out was how do we know how or when to go against the text. Or to put it another way how on earth did we get from Leviticus or Joshua or Judges to ‘Father forgive them for they know not what they do’?

Got to go now. Maybe psyduck will say more. If not will try to write more in the morning.

Luigi
 
Posted by J. J. Ramsey (# 1174) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:

But my problem isn't whether they actually were commanded to by God, it's that the story says that they were. I've been working within the framework of the narrative, since, notwithstanding ex post facto rationalisations* - like Augustine's, like this one - it's all we've got to go on, and it's the narrative, not the truth of the matter, that's the sticking point.
Maybe God valued the free will of the author of Joshua so much that he allowed the narrative to read as it stands, flaws and all. One could argue that he did something similar for the author of Genesis. Maybe God wanted it to be a riddle for us to puzzle out.

(BTW, If I seem to be on the fence on this issue (see here, it's because I am.)
 
Posted by Tuggboat (# 7001) on :
 
Wood I hope I'm zeroing in on your central issue.
quote:
It's not the act that causes the problems; it's God commanding the Israelites to commit what looks very much like a sin.
Does it look like sin to you because of the commandment not to kill?

If so does the commandment not to kill restrict one or many from defending themselves. Or does it restrict God from commanding them to defend themselves? Does the commandment restrict God or man?

Does the command not to kill extend to animals for sacrifice food or just Humans.

If it is accidental is it as heinous as premeditated?

If it is a calculated premeditated defense rather than a calculated premeditated offense does that make any difference?

What was more important the letter or the spirit of the law?

Is there a difference between Strongs 2026 harag and 7523 ratasch which is the Hebrew word used in the commandment.

Since the command was originally given to Moses then passed onto Joshua was it possible that Moses lied and just had a grudge or unfinished business that he could not bare to die with. The original command to blot out the memory of Amalek is way back in Exodus 17:8

Since Joshua heard God tell him to sin was he insane since only the insane believe God could tell him to kill?

Maybe he was just frustrated and couldn't think of another way out and never communicated with God at all.

These are many of the places my mind has to go if I put myself in your shoes.
[brick wall]
 
Posted by Esmeralda (# 582) on :
 
Originally posted by Wood:
quote:
But my problem isn't whether they actually were commanded to by God, it's that the story says that they were. I've been working within the framework of the narrative, since, notwithstanding ex post facto rationalisations* - like Augustine's, like this one - it's all we've got to go on, and it's the narrative, not the truth of the matter, that's the sticking point.
Pace what JJ has said, I want to question that statement that the story 'is all we have to go on'. You almost seem to be saying. with the fundamentalists, that 'the plain sense' is all we need. Surely we also have the insights of biblical scholars who have established (and presumably not without internal and external evidence) that Joshua was probably compiled, if not altogether written, as a justification for Josiah's reforms and centralization of worship. In this case, the assertion that God commanded the genocide of the various 'ites' (excluding Mennonites!), would be very useful to Josiah in propagating his view that sites of pagan worship should be destroyed without mercy. In other words, the book of Joshua is an early case of 'spin'.
Obviously if one has a 'flat' view of Scripture, this is problematic. I don't find it such a problem because I have a 'hierarchical' view of Scripture in which the NT severely relativises the messages of the OT.
I am not saying by this that Joshua has nothing at all to teach us (or encourage us with, or rebuke us with, etc). If I thought that, I could not have written Bible notes on it.
One of the lessons I discovered as I studied for and wrote those notes was the insight of Millard Lind, that God specifically commanded the Israelites to limit their military might so that it might be clear that the victory was God's. We might not find this very adequate today, if we are (as I am) trying to find alternatives to waging war at all. But in its context, this was a radical step. There are even stories where God commands the Israelites not to fight at all, but simply to see what God will do; and God goes on to defeat the pagans by means of hurricanes and hailstorms. I'd like to see the message of those stories applied to some of our 'defence' decisions today, such as Gordon Brown's choice to spend more on security for us, rather than on development for the rest of the world.
Other lessons which I found in Joshua were at a more 'micro' rather than 'macro' level; for instance the stories of women inheriting (Caleb's daughter, the daughters of Zelophehad) which are rarely noticed, let alone preached on, and which form a striking contrast to the societies around Israel, where women were more likely to be sold into religious prostitution, than to inherit land. Likewise the sharing out of the land demonstrates a remarkably egalitarian society, a kind of proto-socialism, again in contrast to the pagan nations.
So - even if I do not find these massacre stories admirable, I find it admirable that these ancient writers sought to involve God in every aspect of their lives and history. Of course, everything becomes easier if you accept that the massacres did not actually happen as described, but are being 'talked up' for a political purpose. But you can't do that if you believe the OT to be a source of factual history.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
But my problem isn't whether they actually were commanded to by God, it's that the story says that they were. I've been working within the framework of the narrative, since, notwithstanding ex post facto rationalisations* - like Augustine's, like this one - it's all we've got to go on, and it's the narrative, not the truth of the matter, that's the sticking point.
That is a useful clarification. I myself would have more trouble with the actual act than the account. I think that the account is easier to deal with than the act itself.

Swedenborgians, among others, deal with the account by saying that it is deeply symbolic. It wasn't a good thing, but it STANDS for a good thing - and therefore it is presented as such.

This is clearly true of a character like Samson. Even children reflecting on Samson's character see how flawed he was. Yet he is an obvious type representing the Christ, and this must have been the source of his miraculous power. And this despite the fact that the only redeeming quality he appeared to have was that he killed the enemy - if we can count that as "good."

Children, and people who don't reflect deeply on these kinds of things just accept the story as given. God clobbers the bad guys. People who reflect on the situation, however, are supposed to be able to see that it wasn't a good situation, and is therefore symbolic.

The really remarkable thing, in my book, is that it is both symbolic and it actually happened.
 
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tuggboat:
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
quote:
Originally posted by Tuggboat:
The Fire bombing of Dresden comes to mind. The allies decimated that city and its residents to rubble. Under a loose defintion one could claim we exterminated the Dresdenites.
Small grammatical tangent:

"Decimate" means to kill one in ten of the target population. Colloquially, it means to kill a large proportion of the target population. You can only decimate people (or, I suppose, animals), not inanimate objects such as cities.

End tangent.

John
Well that fully explains why Dresden was never termed a genocide. Dresden Tangent pics It fit the definition of Holocaust though. Ritual sacrifice by fire. [/QB]
Really?

Genocide is wiping out a race or a nation. Horrible as what happened at Dresden was, it was not genocide. Unless you want to call what happened in London and Coverntry genocide as well. And then we can agree on a new, extra-dictionary definition of genocide. But I suspect not.

The fact that you misused the word "decimate" has nothing to do with whether what happened at Dresden was genocide -- unless you thought decimate meant "kill the lot" -- in which case your last remark was rather snide and, I believe, ill taken.

Surely you cannot believe that in making a comment about grammar, I was in any way downplaying the importance of what happened at Dresden.

John
 
Posted by hermit (# 1803) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Peppone:
quote:
Originally posted by hermit:
I think that may have a lot to do with the general stance of this website especially at the home site, which seems to be to undercut the authority of the OT in deciding any moral issues, and even to mock it in some ways such as the Biblical curse generator.

I think this thing about the curse generator is a bit of a reach. How does that tell you anything about the attitude of the SoF home page creators and editors?

As for using the OT as a guide to moral issues- to me, the OT story as a whole is steeped in grace and compassion and mercy and love, with all its admonitions to treat the alien with mercy and welcome the stranger and cancel debts...(it's your NT that raises the stakes and gets scary)...which is why the Joshua story seems to contradict the rest of it.
Just telling you my impressions, Peppone. And to say that only one sentiment is to be expressed in the OT, and judgement contradicts it, is sort of like saying that if I'm usually nice, when I act judgmentally on occasion, that's a contradiction so that it must have been someone else in disguise.
quote:
Hermit, are you indeed saying that you adhere to every single OT commandment? If not, how do you decide which ones you think are important and which ones are not?
No, of course I'm a sinner, Zeke. But you can't realize your a sinner if you don't believe God has made some action a sin. And if you don't realize that, you won't repent and be forgiven.
I let my Church decide which OT laws are still in effect. That's one of the main reasons Christ founded it.
quote:
Semantic point taken and I have a real problem with that. Ideas like "ethnic cleansing" come to mind.
Well, if the Amalekite incident occurred just as described, then it was an ethnic cleansing of the land God chose to incarnate in. That doesn't mean we're supposed to do the same without knowing beyond the shadow of a doubt God commanded it.
quote:
My own tradition - British Methodism - has a 200+ year tradition of people interpreting scripture to mean that God is against genocide, murder and war. So I stand squarely inside my own tradition.
Yes He is, that's just what Catholics believe in general! With exceptions like self-defense in WWII and the Amalekite thing.
quote:
I still resist the use of the word "liberal" until that word is unpacked.
What I meant by telling some people here that Jesus wasn't a modern liberal college professor, was that one shouldn't try to project one's own psychological set and cultural values on him. Actually he doesn't correspond perfectly either to right or left in politics or theology, and is in fact the most mysterious and uncategorizable famous person I've ever heard of.
quote:
BTW, what is it about us westerners, that we want to oppose myth and truth
Because they ARE opposites, and far too many people are fonder of myth than truth. That may be why I'm considered socially retarded.
quote:
Incidentally, hermit's analogy with the mother telling her kid not to play with matches doesn't wash - if the analogy were accurate, it would be tantamount to the mother saying "don't play with matches - except for the ones in this box here. You can burn your fingers all you like on those".
But the mother CAN decide the child may light matches under supervision. And the point of forbidding them isn't to prevent small burns - after all pain is the greatest of teachers - but to prevent the house from burning down. [Biased]
quote:
Me neither. I echo Luigi's post from earlier; I also refer back to my 1984 illustration before; what Hermit and Sanc and Lep want me to do is to see five fingers because God commands it; yet there are quite clearly and distinctly four.

Two and two make four, and even if God Himself insists they make five, they still make four.
I'll comment even though I missed the original illustration having skipped a few pages ... you can say we have four fingers and a thumb on one hand, or you can say we're a species with five-fingered hands. Depends on definitions ... another example is in the English translation of Psalm 22, we see suffering psalmist speaking of being wounded in the hands and feet, so some people discard this as a genuine prophecy of the Crucifixion because they believe people were only nailed through the wrists and not the hands. But in fact the Hebrew word for hand could include the wrist, the word wasn't precisely translatable. So the OT may be more complex than most people realize, and harder to understand .... it's best to distill the truth from many viewpoints, as I think Hegel said.
And God's is a higher viewpoint just as my signature said, we certainly can't all He does, the difference between us and Him is immeasurable.
quote:
If vengeance is God's, why does He get the Israelites to do it, when he can quite easily do it on His own (cf. Flood, Sodom)?
Why should we pray when presumbly God has our best interests in mind already? I suppose it has to do with establishing a closer relationship, but don't know for sure.
quote:
Whoa. How are we judging God? We're judging Scripture in the light of Scripture. As in, God tells the Israelites to do one thing, and then the opposite in a difficult context.
Huh? The opposite? When did God command the Israelites never to kill Amalekites or Canaanites?
 
Posted by Peppone (# 3855) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by hermit:
And to say that only one sentiment is to be expressed in the OT, and judgement contradicts it, is sort of like saying that if I'm usually nice, when I act judgmentally on occasion, that's a contradiction so that it must have been someone else in disguise.
Hmmm. True. Well, point taken. But I only said "seems to contradict"- to tell you the truth, I've no idea yet what to think about Joshua and the Amalekites. It's come up recently in my EFM group too.

And I've no problem with judgement- it's there. It's just that the OT seems most often to direct judgement at the people of God for not living up to their calling: this wholesale slaughter of the Amalekites stands somewhat outside the pattern. Then again, maybe not. Pharoah and the Egyptian infant boys spring to mind. I don't know.
 
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
Without making my own apparently confusing contributions which give the impression of being attacks, Esmeralda and Luigi are articulating well what I've been trying to say badly. I didn't answer your "getting out of the circle" post, Esmeraleda, because my first reaction to it was "But that's what I've been trying to say all along!" and I think your point 4 is the "stepping out of the circle".

I especially agree with the following comments:

quote:
Originally posted by Luigi I think that you have to step outside what is basically an evangelical ‘received text’ approach to the Bible, if you are to answer this question.

I believe that it is Biblical to 'go against the text'. This is part of the Jewish tradition and this is exactly what Jesus did at times. In other words we can come to the conclusion that there are parts of the Bible where what it says of God is wrong. Many OT scholars would agree with this, but for me that left the question of what the leitmotif that is the engine for the forward momentum within the OT actually is. Unless we can discover this the Bible is just a very confusing, misleading book.
and

quote:
Originally posted by Esmeralda: I want to question that statement that the story 'is all we have to go on'. You almost seem to be saying. with the fundamentalists, that 'the plain sense' is all we need. Surely we also have the insights of biblical scholars who have established (and presumably not without internal and external evidence) that Joshua was probably compiled, if not altogether written, as a justification for Josiah's reforms and centralization of worship. In this case, the assertion that God commanded the genocide of the various 'ites' (excluding Mennonites!), would be very useful to Josiah in propagating his view that sites of pagan worship should be destroyed without mercy. In other words, the book of Joshua is an early case of 'spin'.

 
Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :
 
I'll answer Esmerelda as you aren't quite as far removed from my position as the other recent posters! I don't understand how Freddy finds genocide to be not a good thing but to stand for a good thing. This doesn't even get close to being a believable squaring of the circle.

quote:

Obviously if one has a 'flat' view of Scripture, this is problematic. I don't find it such a problem because I have a 'hierarchical' view of Scripture in which the NT severely relativises the messages of the OT.
I think my problem with this is that those following the Judeo-Christian faith only had the OT up until 2000 years ago. How could they relativise these passages? If you are trying to decide how to behave as a community you have these clear commands to commit genocide. Now a God who is supposedly perfect who demands that we act in such a way and yet also condemns us when we kill - is a God who is virtually impossible to follow. Far to schizophrenic to be the source of all that is good in the universe.

Further, if I was alive in Jesus time and believed this to be scripture and that I was meant to take it in a evangelical received text way then I can't see any way of avoiding the conclusion that I would've reject Jesus.

As to your micro lessons I am sure that I could find some 'good' aspects to the holocaust if I tried. You know the way so many people worked together and it wasn't just the rich but it invovled people from every walk of life!

However, I believe you are right that the Bible cannot be read as a flat book but to set up the Bible so it is the OT on one level and the NT on another is, IMO, naive and denies Jesus' Jewishness.

Luigi

[ 13. July 2004, 07:58: Message edited by: Wood ]
 
Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 
Tuggboat, I've read your last post a couple times now, and I must confess that I haven't the faintest idea what you're trying to say. You've lost me.

quote:
Originally posted by Esmeralda:
Pace what JJ has said, I want to question that statement that the story 'is all we have to go on'. You almost seem to be saying, with the fundamentalists, that 'the plain sense' is all we need.
Actually, I'm looking at the text from the viewpoint of narratology. The direction I'm coming from has more to do with Roland Barthes* than Wayne Grudem, to be honest.

It's not about the history. It doesn't matter if it's true or not (even if it's 100% made up), because the text says that God commanded genocide.

It's not about the facts, it's about the text**, and the content of the text.

quote:
Surely we also have the insights of biblical scholars who have established (and presumably not without internal and external evidence) that Joshua was probably compiled, if not altogether written, as a justification for Josiah's reforms and centralization of worship.
Actually, they've put forward arguments into the intellectual marketplace which some have found convincing. But they're not the only theories, and they're no more Gospel truth than any other.

And again - they don't change the content of the text.

The only facts I'm interested in are the facts of the text. Interpretation is nice, but in the end it doesn't change what the text says.

quote:
So - even if I do not find these massacre stories admirable, I find it admirable that these ancient writers sought to involve God in every aspect of their lives and history.
OK, that's a good point.

quote:
Of course, everything becomes easier if you accept that the massacres did not actually happen as described, but are being 'talked up' for a political purpose. But you can't do that if you believe the OT to be a source of factual history.
This is nothing to do with whether it's factual history or not. It's about the story, the text, the narrative.

_____________________

*Roland Barthes: French Deconstructionist, writer of The Pleasure of the Text, S/Z and The Death of the Author. Got run over by a car in the 80s. My old academic supervisor once told me when I was writing up my thesis that he was one of many academics who at the time wished they had been driving the car. Actually, I'm not really coming from Barthes' direction, on the grounds that he is a)dead and b)imho mostly wrong. Besides, it's about 4 years since I read S/Z and I vowed never to read the bloody thing again. Don't make me break my promise.

**And by "text", I mean that in the technical sense, as in "récit". Not that it makes much difference here.

[ 13. July 2004, 08:07: Message edited by: Wood ]
 
Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 
Incidentally, I seem to find myself the only person left in this discussion who hasn't reached some kind of personal resolution with it. Is this fair?
 
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
Incidentally, I seem to find myself the only person left in this discussion who hasn't reached some kind of personal resolution with it. Is this fair?
It depends what you mean by "personal resolution" and it also depends what you mean by "left in the discussion". I may be still here.
Really, its all got to do with the meaning of the text you have written. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
Incidentally, I seem to find myself the only person left in this discussion who hasn't reached some kind of personal resolution with it. Is this fair?
It depends what you mean by "personal resolution" and it also depends what you mean by "left in the discussion". I may be still here.
Really, its all got to do with the meaning of the text you have written. [Big Grin]
Thank you, Jacques Derrida.

(Has anyone ever noticed how "Derrida" sounds a bit like "dear reader"? Kind of significant, perhaps?


Oh, please yourselves.)
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
Hermit - I suggest you actually read my earlier post or refraining from commenting on it - as it stands, you are babbling.

I wish more people would actually read the previous post in question, because no-one's actually addressed it.

Wood - if the events did not occur historically as written, then can we not take the Canaanites to be representative of something other than people, thus circumventing the problem with the text as it is?

Luigi - you've been where I am. If I couldn't see how I could ever get a satisfactory resolution to this, I would also reject the Christian faith as morally and intellectually untenable.
 
Posted by Little Weed (# 4402) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
It's not about the history. It doesn't matter if it's true or not (even if it's 100% made up), because the text says that God commanded genocide.

It's not about the facts, it's about the text**, and the content of the text.
Warning: ignorant amateur ahead.

How can you ignore the context, intention, culture, author, etc if your starting point is that the Bible is the word of God, divinely inspired (however strongly or weakly you understand that)? Surely you've already introduced an extraneous assumption?
 
Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Wood - if the events did not occur historically as written, then can we not take the Canaanites to be representative of something other than people, thus circumventing the problem with the text as it is?
Nope. Because even if it's entirely fictional, it's still a narrative about divinely-ordained genocide, with all the moral implications that entails.

[ 13. July 2004, 08:41: Message edited by: Wood ]
 
Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Little Weed:
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
It's not about the history. It doesn't matter if it's true or not (even if it's 100% made up), because the text says that God commanded genocide.

It's not about the facts, it's about the text**, and the content of the text.
Warning: ignorant amateur ahead.

How can you ignore the context, intention, culture, author, etc if your starting point is that the Bible is the word of God, divinely inspired (however strongly or weakly you understand that)? Surely you've already introduced an extraneous assumption?
OK. Wood's Over-Simplified and Patronising Post-Modern Literary Theory Discourse:

The theory goes like this: when a text is created, it develops an entirely independent existence of its own, separate from context, since it is impossible for any of us to read a text without projecting our own cultural assumptions onto it.*

This does actually recognise that we have assumptions about the place of a text as well (ie. its importance to us is part of those cultural assumptions). My argument here is that if the Scripture is authoritative, it problematises the text (although obviously not for everyone here).

Now most people post-Barthes and Derrida have actually backtracked a bit, and pointed out that often a key to understanding can be found in the circumstances of a text's writing.

Personally, I think the only hope of understanding it is by investigating the cultural background of the text's writing (and, post-modern evangelical that I am, by placing the morality of the stories in the context of a world whose shifting shades of morality paradoxically reflect a God with an unchanging moiral character). However, I live in the 21st century and I can't read it in a vacuum. Like everyone else, I project who I am onto the texts I read. Hence the problems we have, which don't seem to have been problems for people a couple hundred years ago - they had diffeent problems, many of which seem alien to us.

Um, does that make things clearer?**

_______________
*Which is why I found it mildly amusing when Leprechaun (I think it was) said a ways back that the Bible exists as an independent expression of God's Word, devoid of context, because that's a really, really post-modern thing to say...

**If it does, of course, it means I'm not doing the post-modern lit-crit thing properly. Must. Try. Harder.

[ 13. July 2004, 10:44: Message edited by: Wood ]
 
Posted by kiwigoldfish (# 5512) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Wood - if the events did not occur historically as written, then can we not take the Canaanites to be representative of something other than people, thus circumventing the problem with the text as it is?
Nope. Because even if it's entirely fictional, it's still a narrative about divinely-ordained genocide, with all the moral implications that entails.
Although Jesus did use parables without endorsing the actions portayed in the parable (such as the parable of the fraudulent manager.) Admittedly it's a stretch from Jesus winding up a few of His listeners with an ironic parable to using a genocide myth.

I was reading Nehemiah today, and I noted that he seemed to think the while God gave Israel the military victory, He also gave them the Canaanites to "do with them as they pleased." (Neh. 9:24.) Which isn't the same as saying that he thought that they were commanded to do genocide. It almost sounds like Nehemiah thought that there was some freewill involved.

Which all least suggests me somewhat to this position ...
1. God gave Israel the land, and the Canaanites were going to be a problem to Israel
2. After the victory God warned Joshua not to let the Canaanites have an influence on Israel (don't do their religion or do their wives.)
3. At the same time God allowed Joshua to decide the best way to secure this situation
4. Joshua, like a good Bronze Age commander, went for the eradication option.
5. God would have known this was the option that Joshua took, so from a perspective God could be seen to be a little less proactive than He could have been. But that's not unique to any situation.

I have questions about how God spoke to people in these situations. Is the angel of the Lord thing a literary device, a way of putting it when people felt that God had guided the decision process?

Wood, I'm not decided on any given interpretation yet either. If I could find a palateable way of accepting face value I'd go there. So I'm stuck with "what's God's point in this book?" - given the constraint that He'd probably have made it somewhat clear to the church in the past as well.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
I don't understand how Freddy finds genocide to be not a good thing but to stand for a good thing. This doesn't even get close to being a believable squaring of the circle.
Sure it does.

The Bible is very clear that God is the implacable enemy of evil. His every effort is to rid the world of evil and establish good in its place.

Calling Israel "good" and its enemies "bad", and then allowing the enemies to be destroyed "stands for" His work with the human race as a whole. The fact that Israel wasn't really good or its enemies really much much worse is beside the point. The metaphor was overwhelmingly significant.

This metaphor is at play in virtually all storytelling.

Surely you don't believe that all orcs are bad? I felt sick at heart when Aragorn and his armies nearly wiped them out. At least we weren't treated to views of his cruel raids on the orc villages, and the disgusting mistreatment of the orc women and children. [Waterworks] [Biased] [Waterworks]
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kiwigoldfish:
I have questions about how God spoke to people in these situations. Is the angel of the Lord thing a literary device, a way of putting it when people felt that God had guided the decision process?
This is an important question.

I notice that no here yet has claimed that God told him or her the solution to this thread's conundrum.

So why do we think that it makes sense that God somehow spoke to Joshua?

I think the answer is that Christianity has always assumed that God really did speak audibly to certain people in biblical times - in a way that basically no longer happens. If Bush claimed to have these conversations we could count on a democratic victory in the fall. [Biased]

I believe that all ancient religions claimed this kind of speech with supernatural beings. Just as Joshua spoke with Jehovah, the Philistines were in contact with Dagon, the Ammonites with Chemosh, the Egyptians with members of their pantheon, etc. I don't think that we can assume that only Israel had this kind of supernatural communication. Of course Dagon, Baal, Chemosh, etc. were really demons. [Two face]

So, as I have said before, the Angel of the Lord was actually an angel or spirit that appeared to Moses, Joshua, Jacob, and others, and spoke with them "on behalf of" Jehovah. They took on this role to the extent that they called themselves Jehovah.

So I don't think that it is a literary device.
 
Posted by Cheesy* (# 3330) on :
 
Hmm... good point Freddy.

C
 
Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 
Well, I'm glad it's not just me who's without a definitive take on this.

I should add, incidentally, that the future course of my faith is not going to depend on whether or not I find an answer to this. If I wasn't ready to face the fact that Christianity was going to raise at least as many questions as it answers, I wouldn't have remained a Christian, frankly.

quote:
Originally posted by kiwigoldfish:
Although Jesus did use parables without endorsing the actions portayed in the parable (such as the parable of the fraudulent manager.)
...although (speaking tangentially) I've come across interpretations of parables like that one where they've tried to make it sound like Jesus did endorse the subject of the parable, the reasoning being that if Jesus is able to draw a point from this story, what the subject of it is doing must be right. Silly, but there you go.

quote:
Admittedly it's a stretch from Jesus winding up a few of His listeners with an ironic parable to using a genocide myth.
True, especially since all of the parables are surrounded in the text with the framing sequence "Jesus said", allowing the reader some sense of distance from the narrative.
 
Posted by sanc (# 6355) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
Can I just point out that people are allowed to post whatever opinions they like in Purgatory, with the following provisos:

.....

3. If a subject or tangential subject of discussion veers into the territory of our Dead Horse subjects (eg. homosexuality, creation, inerrancy, abortion), you will be expected to pursue it on the appropriate threads in Dead Horses.

i may have stirred the forum into this contention about swipes and things when somebody replied to my post. since i'm an apprentice here i thought that the innumerated subjects are open for discussion, and to me the bible has specific provisions for our stand regarding them. personally i won't agree that this topics are best discussed in dead horse or hell. if we are to have our GOD guided stand on this issues, they better be discussed among mature christians in a serious forum.
____

if genocide is the extermination of a whole group people then israel has attempted one during the years they captured canaan but failed. GOD express command is to annihilate everyone. but they did not heed GOD's command. the paradox is, GOD held them accountable for their outright violation of this command. HE said that they are going to suffer from raids and encroachment from this heathen. during this time, GOD's power is revealed through the deeds that HE made during the wanderings of israel. the nations round about had the idea who the GOD of the israel IS. rahab knew this. the israelites doesn't have the exclusive priviledge of serving JEHOVAH. GOD gave provisions for a foreigner to be naturalized as an israelite. GOD said to abraham that through HIM shall the nations be blessed.

why should it be too heavy to swallow when GOD set judgement on a group of people that they be exterminated? GOD is not bound by the commandment "thou shalt not kill" we are. when GOD passes judgement and we are at a loss as to its plausible explanation, we should not human as we are question it fairness of justness. for then we deem ourselves as the better judge.
 
Posted by adsarf (# 4288) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
Wood's Over-Simplified and Patronising Post-Modern Literary Theory Discourse:

The theory goes like this: when a text is created, it develops an entirely independent existence of its own, separate from context, since it is impossible for any of us to read a text without projecting our own cultural assumptions onto it.*

I hope you'll forgive me for disregarding this very simple and lucid definition when I offer some comments.

ISTM that Joshua isn't meant to be read as literal historical truth. The Bible itself tells us this by preserving rather different historical traditions in Judges.

It may be helpful to think further (some people have already posted on this) about the reasons why Joshua may have been written (yes, I know, not very Post-Modern. Sorry). Just as Corinthians was written primarily for the Corinthians (but, we may believe, also speaks truthfully to us), so Joshua was presumably written for someone other than us at a time other than ours to address issues which were important then and may no longer be so important (a Blinding Glimpse of the Obvious in a sense, but we often fail to approach the Bible in this way).

Of course there are a lot of ways one could speculate about this. It could have been written to validate Israel's possession of the land ('Its ours because God gave it to us...'), it could be to validate the practice of Genocide ('I know it seems bad, but look, God used this technique in the past...'). To me it seems to be 'about' purity (I'd always thought it was later than Esmeralda suggests, post-exilic in fact, but I confess I'm no longer sure *why* I think that).

So I think what I am saying is that I read Joshua as a contribution to the OT's debate on who is/isn't a Jew. Whereas Ruth and Jonah try to subvert the question altogether, Joshua takes a less subversive approach. The implication of Jonah or Ruth is that the question is the wrong one to be asking, but the implication of Joshua is that the the question has already been answered. That means that this tale of ancient genocide/ethnic cleansing doesn't actually validate modern genocide (at the time of writing), but rather suggests that it is unneccesary.

Now of course this aproach is very vulnerable to my inability to justify my dating of the text - since I've forgotten why I was originally persuaded to accept it. Let's say we redate the text to the time of Judas Macabeus, and then we might read it quite differently. Even if I could remember what persuaded me, I'm probably not sufficently skilled to argue for it here, since I'm really only a Medievalist.

So I think what I am saying is that to focus on the question of whether God commanded the genocide is to focus on an issue which (ISTM) was incidental to writers and readers of the original text, so the effect is like trying to reconcile Revalation to historical events - it is an approach to the text that can only tie us in knots. I read Joshua as an attempt to argue that the question of Jewish purity had been decisively settled in the deep past, and therefore didn't need to be reopened in the present; it is therefore kind of a call for unity.

I don't know if this advances the argument any, that probably isn't possible at this stage even with much better-prepared posts, but its my tuppenceworth.

Andrew
 
Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sanc:
since i'm an apprentice here i thought that the innumerated subjects are open for discussion, and to me the bible has specific provisions for our stand regarding them. personally i won't agree that this topics are best discussed in dead horse or hell. if we are to have our GOD guided stand on this issues, they better be discussed among mature christians in a serious forum.
The rules on the Ship work like this: understanding that there are some subjects which are constantly under discussion on Christian forums and which rarely reach any conclusion, we set up a board called Dead Horses specifically for their discussion, in order that they don't clog up the discussion in Purgatory or the other boards.

The threads in Dead Horses are open to serious discussion. All we ask is that you keep discussion of the "hot button" subjects there.

quote:
if genocide is the extermination of a whole group people then israel has attempted one during the years they captured canaan but failed.
GOD express command is to annihilate everyone. but they did not heed GOD's command. the paradox is, GOD held them accountable for their outright violation of this command. HE said that they are going to suffer from raids and encroachment from this heathen.
But don't you see? This compounds the problem! The problem we have is not that the Israelites did it, but that God ordered it. If God judges the Israelites for not having done it, that makes God all the more responsible in the stories for having ordered it.

quote:
why should it be too heavy to swallow when GOD set judgement on a group of people that they be exterminated?
Go back and read the rest of thread again, mate.

quote:
GOD is not bound by the commandment "thou shalt not kill" we are.
No, but we are. Therefore, when God tells people to break it, that's a difficult pill to swallow. We're not asking for God to follow the rules He set for us.

However, God declares for Himself standards of honour and consistency. If God doesn't live up to His own standards... well. It's disturbing.

quote:
when GOD passes judgement and we are at a loss as to its plausible explanation, we should not human as we are question it fairness of justness. for then we deem ourselves as the better judge.
Go back and read the rest of the thread, mate.

[ 13. July 2004, 13:20: Message edited by: Wood ]
 
Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by adsarf:
It may be helpful to think further (some people have already posted on this) about the reasons why Joshua may have been written (yes, I know, not very Post-Modern. Sorry). Just as Corinthians was written primarily for the Corinthians (but, we may believe, also speaks truthfully to us), so Joshua was presumably written for someone other than us at a time other than ours to address issues which were important then and may no longer be so important (a Blinding Glimpse of the Obvious in a sense, but we often fail to approach the Bible in this way).
I think this is actually quite helpful and concise, although you may find out that for many people here, it is not by any means a Blinding Glimpse of the Obvious.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
post-modern evangelical that I am, by placing the morality of the stories in the context of a world whose shifting shades of morality paradoxically reflect a God with an unchanging moral character
But I thought you said that it was Augustine who said that?

I never knew he was post-modern.

Though we've been claiming him as an evangelical for who knows how long.
 
Posted by linzc (# 2914) on :
 
Perhaps a bit of a tangent (or at least a minor tributary) but...

quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
But I'm saying that Joshua committed genocide, in the story at God's behest. God may have committed the act vis à vis the Flood and Sodom, but that's God's prerogative (hence no one has objected to those).

The problem is not that God did it. The problem is that God is presented as having told the Israelites to do it. It's not the act that causes the problems; it's God commanding the Israelites to commit what looks very much like a sin.

A recap:

1. The Israelites commit genocide in the Bible.
2. If the story as presented is correct, they do it at the command of God.
4. This creates more problems than God simply taking things into his own hands, because:
8. It means that God is ordering the Israelites to break the rules that He has set for them;
16. ...because if that is the case, God is inconsistent;
32. ...and since God is generally regarded as being possessed of an unchanging moral character as a divine attribute, this would mean that God is not divine, and therefore not God.
64. Theologically, this has worrying implications.
128. Therefore, we're trying to make some sense of it.
I beg to differ. I do have an objection to the idea that God wiped out all life on earth, or even just the town of Sodom. Personally I would say that there is an inconsistency even if God says "You shouldn't kill but its ok for me to wipe out whole cities / races /species I take an exception to."

I believe that the injunction against killing is there because killing is actually a BAD THING and it is a further tenet of my faith that God doesn't do BAD THINGS. Or to put it another way - God's commands are all actually aimed at making us like Him. So if He's genocidal that's problematic.

Coming back to the main stream, I'm with Esmerelda who I think said it right in about post 3, but I recognise that that won't wash for Wood because ISTM that Wood's "what the text says dammit" approach is actually the kind of 'flat' reading of Scripture which prevents Esmerelda's interpretation.
 
Posted by sanc (# 6355) on :
 
i've read it before posting my reply
 
Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by linzc:
Coming back to the main stream, I'm with Esmerelda who I think said it right in about post 3, but I recognise that that won't wash for Wood because ISTM that Wood's "what the text says dammit" approach is actually the kind of 'flat' reading of Scripture which prevents Esmerelda's interpretation.
Actually, not quite: I recognise that Esmerelda may well be right (or may not be) - but the problem is that it doesn't change the text. My problem isn't with the facts of the history. If it was, Esmerelda would have had me convinced some time ago.

I'm not working from a "flat" reading here - I'm working from a semi-deconstructionist one.
 
Posted by sanc (# 6355) on :
 
wood:

not all killing violates the commandment not to kill. killing chickens for dinner is one. stoning to death a witch or a medium in a theocratic israel is another. we could make the list longer. and i would also add this contentious subject to the list, killing a whole group of people which GOD pronounced as extremely wicked does not violate the commandment not to kill as long as you have the expressed command from GOD to do so.
 
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:

Which is why I found it mildly amusing when Leprechaun (I think it was) said a ways back that the Bible exists as an independent expression of God's Word, devoid of context, because that's a really, really post-modern thing to say...
Point of order.
I don't think I did say this. So please do not be amused at my behest.
 
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by linzc:
I believe that the injunction against killing is there because killing is actually a BAD THING and it is a further tenet of my faith that God doesn't do BAD THINGS.
Yet people die (although if Universalism is true, they don't remain dead, and if any form of Christianity is true, they don't all remain dead), and God is omnipotent. Therefore... ?

Wood, could you attempt to explain your position to this Face of little brain again, please? I don't quite get why it doesn't matter to you that the text says God ordered genocide if it's fictional, in the same way as it presumably doesn't matter to you that Genesis says the world was created in six days. Are you using an interpretational method that assumes the truth a passage conveys is always aimed at teaching us about God's character?

Sanc, try and keep up.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
Sanc, mate, we know what a flat literal inerrant reading of the Bible leads to.

Our problem is that it stinks.
 
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 
Sorry, missed the edit window.

Try...
I don't quite get why it matters to you that the text says God ordered genocide if it's fictional.
 
Posted by sanc (# 6355) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Sanc, mate, we know what a flat literal inerrant reading of the Bible leads to.

Our problem is that it stinks.
may you elaborate on what you think it has lead me to? i'll address your problem if you in some way i can help.
 
Posted by Little Weed (# 4402) on :
 
quote:
OK. Wood's Over-Simplified and Patronising Post-Modern Literary Theory Discourse: […]
Most helpful and not at all patronising. As you may have gathered, what I know about deconstructionist theory is very limited but I also misunderstood where you were coming from in relation to it. I'm dissatisfied with this post which I think has lost its way a bit but it's the best I can manage at the moment. I hope it makes some sense.

quote:
Personally, I think the only hope of understanding it is by investigating the cultural background of the text's writing (and, post-modern evangelical that I am). However, I live in the 21st century and I can't read it in a vacuum. Like everyone else, I project who I am onto the texts I read. Hence the problems we have, which don't seem to have been problems for people a couple hundred years ago - they had diffeent problems, many of which seem alien to us.
If I am presented with any historical text I want to know everything I can about the times in which it was written. In so far as it is possible I want to strip back my own 21st century European assumptions and try to get into the minds of the people who wrote and read it. Every last scrap of human knowledge, critically assessed, is relevant to that, whether it is archaeological or about writing genres or societal values and attitudes of the time. It also seems vitally important to me to know how the OT was understood in the 1st century CE and how it is understood by Jews today. As Luigi said, we have to remember Jesus’s Jewish roots and I for one would love more contributions from Jewish scholars on SoF. I gave a link to contemporary, scholarly Jewish reaction to Joshua earlier on and no-one commented but that’s another piece of evidence I need to consider.

I have to recognise the difference between them and now. I realised the other day when we were talking about the Killer Saviour that I’m not impressed by violence and never have been. At all. God can kill? So what? So can I with the help of half a ton of metal and a bit of day-dreaming as I approach the traffic lights. So can microscopic bacteria. Maybe I lack the testosterone. Maybe it’s because I live a comfortable middle-class existence and I don’t have to fight to stay alive. Maybe it’s because I understand something about how earthquakes and lighning and floods happen that, as powerful and violent as they are, they are explicable in scientific terms. In human beings I look at violence and I see weakness. My heroes aren’t warmongers, they are those who love to the end. That’s all very different from 3000 years ago.

I’m also a product of the Enlightenment, Western thought patterns (so I'm told), the increasing emphasis on the value of the individual and human rights, and a distrust of hierarchies and temporal power. It surprises me to see people criticise these things because I see valuing each and every human being as what Jesus did, as much as his mission was a global one. It’s taken society a very long time to catch up with him. It is only very, very recently in the west that troops haven’t been seen as expendable cannon-fodder.

I have to do all that stripping away of my assumptions and adding of background material before I can begin to let the OT speak to me. What I do is imperfect but I do the best I can. And my own personal conclusion as to what Joshua tells me about the nature of God is that it teaches me very little if anything at all. It is part of Jewish history and has been preserved and is valuable for that but as to any spiritual meaning it’s important because of what it tells us about human beings more than anything it purports to say reliably about God.

Will God strike me dead for saying this? Well, all the evidence seems to be that the bad don’t get struck down any more often than the good but who knows…

quote:
**If it does, of course, it means I'm not doing the post-modern lit-crit thing properly. Must. Try. Harder.
Ha ha.
 
Posted by sanc (# 6355) on :
 
may you elaborate on what you think it has lead me to? i'll address your problem if in some way i can help.

(thats better)
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
It's led you to an image of God who is violent, murderous, genocidal, monstrous and completely unloveable. Worshippable only out of fear. A God who thinks that slaying babes in arms can be a Good Thing.

That's where I'm unwilling to go.

[ 13. July 2004, 15:01: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
 
Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 
Leprechaun: it wasn't you? Hm. I was sure it was. OK. Anyway, someone of the more conservative persuasion said it. And it was still amusing, even if it wasn't you. [Smile]

quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
I don't quite get why it matters to you that the text says God ordered genocide if it's fictional.
Um, because it's the text that says it.

Hopefully, you've got by now that I'm not going for a "flat" reading of Scripture; rather I'm deconstructing it. Well, sort of.

But the thing is, by proving that the story didn't happen, all you do is make yourself an excuse to side-step the meaning of the text, the text's "moral" force (and I use that term for want of a better one), and find an excuse to ignore it rather than come to grips with it. See, it's still a story about God ordering genocide as if it's a good thing.

What I want to know is: what sort of world produces a text about a god who orders genocide as if it's a good thing? Does this still hold? And what sort of Bible has that as Scripture? And can we reconcile it with our worldview, without sidelining it?

I mean, Job is often considered to be fictional, but we don't have much of a problem getting meaning from that. We don't rationalise Job or sideline, even though it's from the same world.

I suppose what I'm saying is that it doesn't necessarily matter whether it happened, cause that's not really what it's about. But part of what it's about is God ordering genocide.

[ 13. July 2004, 17:04: Message edited by: Wood ]
 
Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
It's led you to an image of God who is violent, murderous, genocidal, monstrous and completely unloveable. Worshippable only out of fear. A God who thinks that slaying babes in arms can be a Good Thing.
And yet, there are people here who demonstrably do love this God, and they're not mad. What's going on there, then?

[ 13. July 2004, 18:48: Message edited by: Wood ]
 
Posted by adsarf (# 4288) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
See, it's still a story about God ordering genocide as if it's a good thing.
I think this was the point of my rather over-long post. Is that what the story is about? Or is it 'about' that in the same sense that Revelation is 'about' predicting the exact time, place and nature of the end of the world?

If you are trying to engage with the text in a way that it was never intended for (in this case, seeking ethical guidance from it) then how can it lead you to anything but confusion?

Andrew
 
Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :
 
Wood - can I just find out how much common ground we have here.

I believe that it is the apparent affirmation of a genocidal act that is problematic to you. It is to me as well. As far as I can see there is no convincing way of reading the text in any plausibly alternative way that is plausible.

I also think that consequently there were almost certainly real barbaric acts that followed such a brutal assertion. I know this is not primarily your problem but it is at least part of the problem for me. Even if it is just because it is more likely that barbaric acts followed it due to it being present in the text.

Making this passage into a metaphor or into fiction is a far too facile a get out clause for me.

The fact that this seems to be in such tension with certain parts of Jesus' teaching is also problematic. There is tension and then there is schizphrenia and this reads as schizophrenia to me.

(I know some will say that Jesus articulated some very violent judgements. Well if his more violent statements equate in some way to the OT order to commit genocide then for me Jesus becomes totally unreliable and schizophrenic. I would happily stop following him, if those who believe this can convince me that his message and the OT message contained in these passages are consistent with each other.)

Finally although I want to understand the historical context of the time, I also want a text that isn’t totally misleading unless you are a fully trained Biblical scholar. So for me I want an answer that both stands up to the most detailed and well-informed contextualisation but that also is accessible to those that do not have the benefit of rarefied Western scholarship. In other words I want the answer to emerge from the text itself as well as match rigorous research.

Do we have a reasonable amount of common ground here? After all if we do the maybe the answers that I found may be of interest to you.

The biggest difference I see is that it is not a faith defining issue for you but for me it is. I would agree that I am very happy with a faith that raises as many or more questions than it answers. But I also have to have a faith where there is a point at which I could decide it is nonsense. And for me there seems few other contenders for this decisive issue other than: is God both loving and a Genocide approving maniac?

I am curious as to how much Psyduck’s position answered your question as I suspect I am coming from a fairly similar position.

Luigi
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by adsarf:
If you are trying to engage with the text in a way that it was never intended for (in this case, seeking ethical guidance from it) then how can it lead you to anything but confusion?
That's right. The ethical guidance is in the simple idea that God wins and those who oppose Him lose.

Here people are criticizing that concept, over the mere technicality that "losing" in these descriptions involves higher stakes than seems reasonable.

But don't you see that the higher the stakes are the more emphatically it proves the point? Who would pay attention to a god who was only able to conjure up a minor rash on His enemies? It reminds me of the policeman who would shout "Stop or I'll say 'Stop' again!" What kind of account would the Old Testament be if God only struck the Egyptians with acid indigestion? The story would be long forgotten.

Nor have we learned our lesson. There are at least five movies playing locally in which large numbers of supposedly bad guys are unapologetically wiped out. The audience cheers and walks out feeling happy.

The problem is that when we think seriously about it we know that the "bad guys" aren't really all that bad, and that it's not right to end innocent lives.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
It's led you to an image of God who is violent, murderous, genocidal, monstrous and completely unloveable. Worshippable only out of fear. A God who thinks that slaying babes in arms can be a Good Thing.
And yet, there are people here who de3monstrably do love this God, and they're not mad. What's going on there, then?
I don't know.

You may not believe this, but when I was an inerrantist I liked Jesus but couldn't stick His dad - for this very reason.

Is it unfair to stay "Stockholm Syndrome"?

[ 13. July 2004, 18:48: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
I didn't mean that seriously, but then:

quote:
o A person threatens to kill another and is perceived as having the capability to do so.

o The other cannot escape, so her or his life depends on the threatening person.

o The threatened person is isolated from outsiders so that the only other perspective available to her or him is that of the threatening person.

o The threatening person is perceived as showing some degree of kindness to the one being threatene
- http://www.yahoodi.com/peace/stockholm.html

1. Yes, God threatens to destroy them just like He did the Canaanites if they carry on in our evil ways. Obviously He is capable.

2. We cannot escape God; He's everywhere.

3. They isolate themselves by rejecting any alternative viewpoints because of a commitment to inerrancy and evangelical theology.

4. "But God is loving because He sent Jesus"...

It's scarily close from my viewpoint.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
Making this passage into a metaphor or into fiction is a far too facile a get out clause for me.
I think the metaphor works great. You have to realize that the "God commanded" part is a metaphor too.

You have to ask yourself, "What was so great about the Israelites that allowed them to find such favor with God?" The answer is "Nothing." The entire relationship was a metaphor. The Israelites were ordinary people.

Or maybe we don't know what is meant by terms like "metaphoric" or "symbolic".

Are we really appreciating how great the role of symbolism is in Christianity? What are baptism and communion about? How can they be taken seriously if we don't think that there is power in these symbolic acts? How do we really think the biblical miracles happened, if not by the power contained in symbolism?

I don't think this is a facile "get out clause." It is far more plausible and satisfying than the alternatives, which amount to either a cruel God or no God.
 
Posted by hermit (# 1803) on :
 
quote:
I have to do all that stripping away of my assumptions and adding of background material before I can begin to let the OT speak to me. What I do is imperfect but I do the best I can. And my own personal conclusion as to what Joshua tells me about the nature of God is that it teaches me very little if anything at all. It is part of Jewish history and has been preserved and is valuable for that but as to any spiritual meaning it’s important because of what it tells us about human beings more than anything it purports to say reliably about God.
What it teaches me is that obediance to God and faith in Him is more important than mere biological life and death.

Wood, my understanding of what you've said is that it's irrelevant whether the story literally happened, any more than it's important whether the Creation story literally happened or the parable of Lazarus (and I agree with that) - what disturbs you is that the Creator, who presumably wishes to communicate with humans and teach them values - would allow such horrendous stories in the canon.

The problem is that you've placed human life higher on the list of values than God has, while I believe it's lower than obediance and faith. The reason you've done that is because you have a limited human viewpoint (not that I've got a perfect viewpoint! We're all seeing through an ancient glass darkly). I think it was Ken way back who asked something like "what difference does it make if 500 Amalekites die in the same day from a sword, or over a period of years from choking on microwaved potatoes? What difference if the children die from whooping cough or from a sword?"

A death is a death. Happens to all of us sooner or later. It's important to realize that it is a purely human emotion to feel greatly disturbed at death, especially human death, more especially human deaths clustered together in a "tragic" event such as a genocide or an earthquake or whatever. But that's an EMOTIONAL RESPONSE hardwired into our brain in the natural order of things .... it has nothing much to do with God's higher view.

What I've just said above is an attempt to guess at why the overwhelming central teaching of the OT through all the books is that obediance to God and faith even in His absence are more important than fear of death or any of our other programmed human drives, such as sex or eating.
 
Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 
Luigi, time is short, but thanks for that post. I'll tell you what I think of it when I have more time, probably tomorrow morning.

quote:
Originally posted by hermit:
Wood, my understanding of what you've said is that it's irrelevant whether the story literally happened, any more than it's important whether the Creation story literally happened or the parable of Lazarus (and I agree with that)
No, what I've said is that the question of whether these stories happened or not is irrelevant to my my problem with the tales.

quote:
- what disturbs you is that the Creator, who presumably wishes to communicate with humans and teach them values - would allow such horrendous stories in the canon.
Not quite. But it's such a fine distinction, I'll let that one go.

quote:
The problem is that you've placed human life higher on the list of values than God has, while I believe it's lower than obediance and faith. The reason you've done that is because you have a limited human viewpoint (not that I've got a perfect viewpoint! We're all seeing through an ancient glass darkly). I think it was Ken way back who asked something like "what difference does it make if 500 Amalekites die in the same day from a sword, or over a period of years from choking on microwaved potatoes? What difference if the children die from whooping cough or from a sword?"

A death is a death. Happens to all of us sooner or later. It's important to realize that it is a purely human emotion to feel greatly disturbed at death, especially human death, more especially human deaths clustered together in a "tragic" event such as a genocide or an earthquake or whatever. But that's an EMOTIONAL RESPONSE hardwired into our brain in the natural order of things .... it has nothing much to do with God's higher view.
But isn't it the Christian belief that the higher emotions of compassion, sympathy and conscience were put there by God anyway, that our emotional response is in fact Divinely ordained?
 
Posted by Zeke (# 3271) on :
 
So, our emotional response to extravagant and wholesale murder is just "hardwired" into us, and unrelated to God's "higher view?" Just who was it that hardwired us, and supposedly is responsible for making us the way that we are? And where do we get our ideas of what is right and wrong? If everything in you tells you that something is bad and wrong, and everything you have ever known about good and bad confirms it, how can you accept a view that somehow God is completely unrelated to that?

[crossposted with Wood, but riled up enough to leave it here anyway]

[ 13. July 2004, 19:38: Message edited by: Zeke ]
 
Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :
 
Could someone other than Freddy please try to explain to me in some other way what on earth he is going on about. To me it is just an exercise in blatant self deception - I really can't understand how anyone would buy it.

Freddy you seem be jumping between reality and metaphor entirely at your own convenience. The more you explain it the more obvious the problems are.

Luigi

[ 13. July 2004, 19:41: Message edited by: Luigi ]
 
Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :
 
Zeke - exactly [Overused]
 
Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :
 
Totally agree with Wood's final paragraph as well but missed the edit time to add it to above post [Disappointed]

Luigi
 
Posted by hermit (# 1803) on :
 
Wood and Zeke, I suppose God put some of it in there, evolution put other stuff, but obviously it's not perfect and a lot depends on our development through faith and obedience .... just as our human development through childhood depends on obedience.

And Zeke, not everyone in the planet feels that killings and genocides are completely and obviously wrong. Quite a few people even like them. So your values in that regard aren't universal values, even though they may be shared by most on this board.

Why weren't we just made perfectly with all the commandments engraved in our hearts and minds from the beginning? That's the way I would have done it. But then I'm not God, so I can't say. It all seems very bizarre to me, like a sort of giant drama.
 
Posted by Little Weed (# 4402) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by hermit
What it teaches me is that obediance to God and faith in Him is more important than mere biological life and death.
So that if God told X to kill Y that's a good thing because Y dies and X has been faithful and obedient? We're back at the start again and killing other people (including, I assume, unborn babies because there were surely pregnant women amongst the enemy) is good as long as God orders it. But hang on, these tribes were evil because their gods required child sacrifice. It doesn't make sense!

I hope that if I am ever put in a position that the only choice I have is between saving my own life or saving the life of someone else God will give me the strength to accept death. That is what I believe is required of me as a Christian. Don't you agree?
 
Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by hermit:
Wood and Zeke, I suppose God put some of it in there, evolution put other stuff, but obviously it's not perfect and a lot depends on our development through faith and obedience ....
Are you saying that as we grow through our walk of faith we should become less affronted by genocide?

Luigi

[ 13. July 2004, 20:15: Message edited by: Luigi ]
 
Posted by Zeke (# 3271) on :
 
The fact that people such as Hitler are universally vilified should show that what they have done is considered wrong by a staggering majority of humans. There aren't that many who think it's a fine idea. As you say, everyone isn't provided with a perfect sense of right and wrong, and it is possible to rationalize away a lot of guilt as well. Just the fact that there are murders doesn't prove that people don't know murder is wrong either, or that it's just a matter of opinion and wouldn't be important if God hadn't taken a fancy to telling us he didn't want us to do it.
 
Posted by Esmeralda (# 582) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
I'll answer Esmerelda as you aren't quite as far removed from my position as the other recent posters! I don't understand how Freddy finds genocide to be not a good thing but to stand for a good thing. This doesn't even get close to being a believable squaring of the circle.

quote:

Obviously if one has a 'flat' view of Scripture, this is problematic. I don't find it such a problem because I have a 'hierarchical' view of Scripture in which the NT severely relativises the messages of the OT.
I think my problem with this is that those following the Judeo-Christian faith only had the OT up until 2000 years ago. How could they relativise these passages?
[taking this point up rather late because I don't want it to get lost] My answer is that they couldn't, and didn't. But then they weren't following 'the Judeao-Christian faith' (there's really no such thing); they were following the Jewish faith. At the stage of the development of the Jewish faith when Joshua was written, it was seen as OK to wipe out pagan nations. In later Jewish times, it wasn't. By Christian times, new Scriptures were needed to demonstrate that 'in Christ', it was definitely not OK.
Part of our problem is that we're trying to read Joshua in isolation from other Bible books. It may indeed be true that the text of Joshua condones or even recommends genocide, but I don't think we can say that the Bible as a whole does (even without the NT?).
Yes, the Bible as a human document produced by Jews (a nation who have always been under threat - and I belong to them), contains texts such as Joshua and the later part of Esther, in which slaughter of enemies is rejoiced in. But it also contains texts like Jonah and Isaiah, with wonderful pictures of God's love for all humankind, and of a coming new world where all nations will respond to God's truth as communicated by the Jews.
We have to hold these things in tension, with the Jesus story as the final yardstick by which their relative truth and importance is measured. That's what I mean by 'a hierarchical view of Scripture': not a case of 'OT bad, NT good', but of knowing that the only way we can read the Scriptures Christianly is to read them through the lens of Christ. And that's another reason why I'm an Anabaptist, folks! [Biased]
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
Could someone other than Freddy please try to explain to me in some other way what on earth he is going on about. To me it is just an exercise in blatant self deception - I really can't understand how anyone would buy it.

Freddy you seem be jumping between reality and metaphor entirely at your own convenience. The more you explain it the more obvious the problems are.
If someone else can explain this better please step in. [Biased]

But my point is that reality and metaphor are not necessarily two separate things. They can be both real and metaphor. This is how Jesus treated them.
 
Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
Could someone other than Freddy please try to explain to me in some other way what on earth he is going on about. To me it is just an exercise in blatant self deception - I really can't understand how anyone would buy it.

Freddy you seem be jumping between reality and metaphor entirely at your own convenience. The more you explain it the more obvious the problems are.
If someone else can explain this better please step in. [Biased]

But my point is that reality and metaphor are not necessarily two separate things. They can be both real and metaphor. This is how Jesus treated them.
Of course reality and metaphor can be contained within a historical story - what I fail to understand is how a story that advocates doing evil is a story of good triumphing over evil - if that is the best God can do then he/she/the barbaric monster is rather crap at using metaphors.

I think you are going to have to explain how Jesus treated them. I always got the impression he was rather better at using metaphor than you are suggesting.

Luigi
 
Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Esmeralda:
quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
I think my problem with this is that those following the Judeo-Christian faith only had the OT up until 2000 years ago. How could they relativise these passages?
quote:
[taking this point up rather late because I don't want it to get lost] My answer is that they couldn't, and didn't. But then they weren't following 'the Judeao-Christian faith' (there's really no such thing); they were following the Jewish faith.

Of course I am aware of this!
quote:
At the stage of the development of the Jewish faith when Joshua was written, it was seen as OK to wipe out pagan nations. In later Jewish times, it wasn't. By Christian times, new Scriptures were needed to demonstrate that 'in Christ', it was definitely not OK.

But this wasn't needed earlier? What a shame for the poor old Amalekites!
quote:

Part of our problem is that we're trying to read Joshua in isolation from other Bible books. It may indeed be true that the text of Joshua condones or even recommends genocide, but I don't think we can say that the Bible as a whole does (even without the NT?).

Actually there is a great deal of the OT that is deeply problematic. In my view there may even be more that is problematic than isn't. How did the Jews know what where to stand on the continuum. God is a bit like a genocide loving maniac but not as much as Joshua suggests? Both are true? You see my main problem is that you are bringing no clarity to the issue. I probably have very similar instincts to you but what you are failing to articulate is what gives the OT narrative its forward momentum.
quote:

Yes, the Bible as a human document produced by Jews (a nation who have always been under threat - and I belong to them), contains texts such as Joshua and the later part of Esther, in which slaughter of enemies is rejoiced in. But it also contains texts like Jonah and Isaiah, with wonderful pictures of God's love for all humankind, and of a coming new world where all nations will respond to God's truth as communicated by the Jews.

I agree that Isaiah is articulating a very different picture of God indeed all the pre-exilic prophets are moving in a similar direction even though some of them get further than others.
quote:

We have to hold these things in tension, with the Jesus story as the final yardstick by which their relative truth and importance is measured. That's what I mean by 'a hierarchical view of Scripture': not a case of 'OT bad, NT good', but of knowing that the only way we can read the Scriptures Christianly is to read them through the lens of Christ.
And I am saying that there are truths that emerge before Jesus that help to point the way to what Jesus represented.

It seems that the only way we can read the OT and expect the Jews to be just going in the right direction when it comes to the question of what is God like, is to discover the leitmotif that underpins its journey.

What, for you, is this leitmotif?

Luigi

[ 13. July 2004, 22:18: Message edited by: Luigi ]
 
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
But isn't it the Christian belief that the higher emotions of compassion, sympathy and conscience were put there by God anyway, that our emotional response is in fact Divinely ordained?
How interesting that my whole church were diagnosed with an entirely new disease by an amateur psychologist while I was out this evening. I must be sure to pass on the news on Sunday.

Anyway, I think its an oversimplification to say that out emotional response is divinely ordained. In a sense yes - because I think God wants us to look at those passages and think - eek that is awful. That's the essence of the lesson. I think that's the only answer to the question of why its left in. God wants us to see him in this way. (but not JUST in this way - which is why he gives us the rest of the Bible too - especially the minor prophets which contain descriptions of worse slughter to come, juxtaposed in the next verse with protestations of infinite love. Work that one out why don't you)

And in a sense no, because part of the essence of our sin is to think we as humans are more important than we actually are. It is, like anything, an emotional response that is right, and yet twisted by sin - which is putting our and our races own value over and above that of God's purposes.
 
Posted by corpusdelicti (# 5124) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by hermit:


A death is a death. Happens to all of us sooner or later. It's important to realize that it is a purely human emotion to feel greatly disturbed at death, especially human death, more especially human deaths clustered together in a "tragic" event such as a genocide or an earthquake or whatever. But that's an EMOTIONAL RESPONSE hardwired into our brain in the natural order of things .... it has nothing much to do with God's higher view.

No, no and thrice no! Any murder is an immoral act, and it is the morality of the act that is important here, not the fact that it causes death.

Do you really beleive that genocide is acceptable because we would all die anyway? Follow this logic and you conclude that the Holocaust was fine because alll Jews die sooner or later.

Death does not "greatly disturb" me, but murder does, and so it should.

Wood seems to be asking this:

We have a scripture in which God can order an act which we would deem, from the rest of scripture, immoral.
It is then also righteous to obey this immoral order.
How do we resolve this?

To me progressive revelation and cultrual understanding is the key ( pace Esmeralda).

Jehovah at that time was seen as a tribal god, his pupose was to ensure the well-being of the tribe. Conquering Canaan was good for the tribe, so came to be seen as blessed by Jehovah. To do this some genocide was required along the way, this was successful, so was also seen as blessed by Jehovah.

This was the view when it came to be written down, and when allied with a requirement for Jewish purity creates a writing that claims that God ordered a genocide.

I think that view is wrong, borne of an early, and narrow view of God, and that God did not and would not order a genocide.

It is an inerrant reading of scripture, which requires God to have written or inspired the passage that causes the problem, rather than the passage itself.
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
Wood, thou art the fairest of them all.

What would you do (for posit's sake), if when you meet gentle Jesus, meek and mild, he says, 'Yeah, it was me. YHWH. Drowned the world. Nuked the Cities of the Plain - not for being gay of course. Killed 185,000 Assyrians. One million Ethiopians. In one go each. God knows how many Egyptians. They're all here, under my wing, say 'Hi', guys.'

I'd like to hear a post-modern evangelical approach, not some lesser liberal rationalist view [Smile] Which at least is infinitely superior to the ILliberal rationalism, or rationalization of Calvinists. They gots NOTHING to say on the issue.
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
And hey, guys, as God's already said sorry once and for all, even though He's going to revert to genocidal type eschat{a/o?}logically (if a liberal can believe that jive), then you know what all us offended human beans gotta do?

Forgive Him.

For not being in our image.

For being perfect.

For being ineffable.

It's the same old story as at Eden, which is why He waits.

We don't trust Him.

We don't want Him around.

Yet.
 
Posted by ekalb (# 2642) on :
 
While I find Martin's posts a pain to read through (no offense to your personal colloquialisms) [Biased] , I do agree with him to the extent that I can understand him.

I think that it's telling that I - as a child - never questioned the 'rightness' of God drowning the world, or commissioning the destruction of a people-group, until I was told that I should.

I recall a lot of fear as I read those passages; fear that compelled me to keep my faith in the forefront. And isn't that, afterall, what these OT books are meant for?

While I'm not ready to say that the Joshua account is depicting 'actual' genocide (simply because I think that the textual wording may refelct an ancient idiom for military victory), I do wish to say that the relationship between Creator and Created is so unlike any other relational dynamic that 'believing that God can kill people whenever He decides to' does not equate to a sinning deity.

I realize that some will read this to mean that I am enslaved to a domineering archetypal image of God - [Disappointed]
 
Posted by LatePaul (# 7562) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by corpusdelicti:
To me progressive revelation and cultrual understanding is the key ( pace Esmeralda).

Jehovah at that time was seen as a tribal god, his pupose was to ensure the well-being of the tribe. Conquering Canaan was good for the tribe, so came to be seen as blessed by Jehovah. To do this some genocide was required along the way, this was successful, so was also seen as blessed by Jehovah.

This was the view when it came to be written down, and when allied with a requirement for Jewish purity creates a writing that claims that God ordered a genocide.
And what of the real Jehovah? Why was he silent when his character was so misrepresented?

quote:
I think that view is wrong, borne of an early, and narrow view of God, and that God did not and would not order a genocide.

It is an inerrant reading of scripture, which requires God to have written or inspired the passage that causes the problem, rather than the passage itself.
First, I do wish people would stop asserting that only inerrantists could possibly have a problem with these passages. As I have said previously, I do not consider myself an inerrantist and yet I have problems finding a way to interpret this stuff.

Second, if a passage is not in some way inspired by God ('written' is an entirely different matter) then in what sense is it 'Scripture'. What does it mean that this book has been upheld by the Church, and the Jewish faith before it, for centuries as part of the revelation of God - when the God it reveals is so different to the one revealed elsewhere, especially in Jesus?

If the view of God that comes from this story is 'narrow' and 'wrong' then what justifies its place in the canon?
 
Posted by lapsed heathen (# 4403) on :
 
Hermit;
quote:
What it teaches me is that obediance to God and faith in Him is more important than mere biological life and death.
Hermit are you certain you're Catholic 'cos that sounds more like Islam to me.

My first post on this thread was cynical and a bit trite tbh (I was in a bad mood at the time)
What I think about this issue is that the story is myth, not in the meaning that it's made up but with a message to tell but meaning that it's true and becomes true by belief. Myth is not an allegory or a symbol, it attempts to 'make' true what it contains. This one is about authority.
Mans or Gods. It comes down very definitely on the side of God.
As Wood says whether the events are facts or not isn't the point. This is the Israelites establishing their God as supreme.

Good post that last one Martin.
 
Posted by Zeke (# 3271) on :
 
I agree.[I mean I was agreeing with LatePaul] I would like to believe that there is a good reason each of these stories was saved with the rest, but I have a lot of trouble seeing why for this kind of thing. Perhaps showing in a naive and childish way that the Israelites really were chosen of God and woe to anybody who interfered with their plans in any way, be it man woman or child. The Israelites seem to have forgotten from time to time that God really would go with them as they traveled, and surely it was difficult to maintain their ethnic and cultural identity as they went. Showing so decisively that God would back them up and make them supremely successful in their goals, maintaining tribal pride and a sense of being set apart might have been the reason it was preserved. It says very little to us today, aside from inspiring horror and disgust, as is clearly seen from this thread.

Some of the problem may stem from a feeling that the canon is divinely ordained, and that God himself wishes those exact books and no others to be studied as records of the ancient Israelites. I don't think we need to accept that necessarily.

[ 14. July 2004, 01:14: Message edited by: Zeke ]
 
Posted by hermit (# 1803) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Little Weed:
quote:
Originally posted by hermit
What it teaches me is that obediance to God and faith in Him is more important than mere biological life and death.
So that if God told X to kill Y that's a good thing because Y dies and X has been faithful and obedient? We're back at the start again and killing other people (including, I assume, unborn babies because there were surely pregnant women amongst the enemy) is good as long as God orders it.
Yes, now you've got it! God's will is the absolute reference point by which we can measure good and evil. And if it's not, then we've got much bigger problems on our hands than a genocide.
quote:
I hope that if I am ever put in a position that the only choice I have is between saving my own life or saving the life of someone else God will give me the strength to accept death. That is what I believe is required of me as a Christian. Don't you agree?
Absolutely.
quote:
Are you saying that as we grow through our walk of faith we should become less affronted by genocide?
Huh?! The God-ordered genocide or genocides in general, Luigi? I don't believe I've said anything at all supportive of ordinary human-directed genocides.
quote:
Just the fact that there are murders doesn't prove that people don't know murder is wrong either, or that it's just a matter of opinion and wouldn't be important if God hadn't taken a fancy to telling us he didn't want us to do it.
As far as I know, Zeke, murder is only considered evil in cultures where the main religion teaches that. Most young males in nonreligious cultures are only too happy to be given a chance to show their virility through murder of other tribes - that's even a problem in our culture. Although I suppose most have a twinge of conscience at the beginning.

So .... where did you get the notion that murder is wrong?

quote:
And in a sense no, because part of the essence of our sin is to think we as humans are more important than we actually are. It is, like anything, an emotional response that is right, and yet twisted by sin - which is putting our and our races own value over and above that of God's purposes.
Yes, Leprechaun!
quote:
No, no and thrice no! Any murder is an immoral act, and it is the morality of the act that is important here, not the fact that it causes death.

Do you really beleive that genocide is acceptable because we would all die anyway? Follow this logic and you conclude that the Holocaust was fine because alll Jews die sooner or later.

Death does not "greatly disturb" me, but murder does, and so it should.
Murder is killing humans aside from God's will, Corpusdelicti. So yes, of course all murder is wrong and immoral. Why, what did you think - that murder is the same thing as killing?

And why do people seem to think I find all genocides acceptable? I've never seen the slightest evidence that God ordered the Holocaust, quite the contrary.

quote:
Jehovah at that time was seen as a tribal god, his pupose was to ensure the well-being of the tribe. Conquering Canaan was good for the tribe, so came to be seen as blessed by Jehovah. To do this some genocide was required along the way, this was successful, so was also seen as blessed by Jehovah.

This was the view when it came to be written down, and when allied with a requirement for Jewish purity creates a writing that claims that God ordered a genocide.

I think that view is wrong, borne of an early, and narrow view of God, and that God did not and would not order a genocide.

It is an inerrant reading of scripture, which requires God to have written or inspired the passage that causes the problem, rather than the passage itself.
Your reading of scripture is the standard secular view of the Bible, largely shared by theologically leftwing Christians. It's possible, but for reasons stated earlier I tend to take things at face value from the OT unless I have extremely good reasons to think otherwise. So far, I haven't seen any good reasons to believe God shares our extreme horror at the thought of human death.
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What it teaches me is that obediance to God and faith in Him is more important than mere biological life and death.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hermit are you certain you're Catholic 'cos that sounds more like Islam to me.
Certainly not, they almost tossed me from these boards at one time about a year ago because I discussed certain un-PC facts about Islamic teachings. Poor Alan Cresswell became furious with me. But since the Koran is partly derived from the OT (it retells many of the more vivid stories, seeming to have an obsession with Moses and Pharoah), there are bound to be some similarities.
quote:
I would like to believe that there is a good reason each of these stories was saved with the rest, but I have a lot of trouble seeing why for this kind of thing. Perhaps showing in a naive and childish way that the Israelites really were chosen of God and woe to anybody who interfered with their plans in any way, be it man woman or child.
Well, how about this for an attempt at illustration - The Creator, Supreme Lord and Emperor of all creation, was about to visit, to incarnate among a group of little carbon blobs in a tiny backwater planet of an ENORMOUS universe. And the Israelites were the welcome committee. So they had to be prepared, given an idea of how much holier and more important He was. Part of the preparation was killing those who murdered, broke his Sabbath, or stumbled while carrying the collection of His laws (the first two done by the Israelites as commanded, the third directly by God or angel). Another part was killing the people who were tormenting and murdering the official welcoming committee.

I just don't have a problem with that. Honestly, I don't have all that much regard for people, myself included .... God's will is so much higher on my list than some alleged sanctity of human life (and I'm pretty sure even the Pope refers to the sanctity of human life, he's a much better humanist than I am).
 
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
*tangent*

quote:
Originally posted by ekalb:
I think that it's telling that I - as a child - never questioned the 'rightness' of God drowning the world, or commissioning the destruction of a people-group, until I was told that I should.

I recall a lot of fear as I read those passages; fear that compelled me to keep my faith in the forefront. And isn't that, afterall, what these OT books are meant for?
Personally, this drove me away from Christianity for 25 years. Of the people I grew up with in my Christian school and church, most are atheists and think that Christianity is a dangerous and corrupt religion. All of the people I know who came back to Christianity after having left it have given up the "sinners in the hands of an angry God" image.

It is equally part of the Christian tradition that God never wills the death of anyone - including all of us condemned by The Fall. "The world" is the way it is because God in his grace gave us free will and God walks beside it in its suffering. This is not a modernist liberal view; it's an ancient and venerable tradition going back to the beginning of Christianity.

The trembling-in-your-boots fear of God is not a place you want to be, believe me. At least, I could not bear waking up every morning knowing that the omnipotent creator of the universe disliked me intensely. It is the "god" from whom the Holy Spirit has saved me and I don't think it is a way into growing faith. It may be a one-time way into conversion for the most hard-hearted and recalcitrant, but I think it drives more people away from Christianity than it attracts to Christianity. And I've met many people whom it has driven away.
 
Posted by linzc (# 2914) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
Actually, not quite: I recognise that Esmerelda may well be right (or may not be) - but the problem is that it doesn't change the text. My problem isn't with the facts of the history. If it was, Esmerelda would have had me convinced some time ago.

I'm not working from a "flat" reading here - I'm working from a semi-deconstructionist one.
I would argue that indeed your reading is 'flat' (in the sense implied by Esmerelda's post) and I base that on the fact that the text is so problematic for you. The text is only problematic if you feel an obligation to affirm the idea within the text that God desires (these particular) genocides.

To put it another way, in reply to Esmerelda, you said:
quote:
I've been working within the framework of the narrative, since, notwithstanding ex post facto rationalisations* - like Augustine's, like this one - it's all we've got to go on, and it's the narrative, not the truth of the matter, that's the sticking point.

Even if you could show me evidence that it didn't happen this way, it wouldn't change the fact that the narrative depicts it thus.
But surely the narrative is only a sticking point because of the particular authority you give it and (IMO) the specific way you see that authority operating. If Fred Axemurderer says "God told me to do it", that doesn't cause you any moral dilemna, does it? You simply chalk this up to an error on Fred's behalf which doesn't affect your view of God. In the case in point, the writers of the Biblical narrative say, "God told us to do it". Why can't you simply chalk it up as their error. This does not prevent you seeing it as something from which we can learn of God and his ways - it simply means that the lesson isn't "Go thou and do likewise."

One more angle. You say that you are wanting to work within the framework of the narrative, but in fact you're not. You are importing your own external moral critique in evaluating the actions described in the text as morally repugnant (or sinful). Within the framework of the narrative, the genocides are not morally reprehensible but are morally praiseworthy. If this is the case, then lesson to be learnt from the text is, "You should obey God - that is morally praiseworthy." The next step is to determine what obedience to God requires in our own culture and with our own moral understanding (which as Christians is of course informed by Revelation). I doubt that genocide is on the menu.
 
Posted by Peppone (# 3855) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by hermit:
Yes, now you've got it! God's will is the absolute reference point by which we can measure good and evil.
Then the only difference between God and Satan is that God is more powerful. In this universe, power lies at the root of all; in God's universe, love, life, and creativity underlie all.

Read your Screwtape.
 
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by corpusdelicti:


Do you really beleive that genocide is acceptable because we would all die anyway? Follow this logic and you conclude that the Holocaust was fine because alll Jews die sooner or later.

Oh stop being silly. Of course you don't. We've been through this.
Its not the same, because God causes people's deaths every day. At the very least he allows it when he could stop it. If a person did this they would be behaving immorally.
Now I know some people have problems with the "different rules apply to God than us" but in the case of death, this is so patently true I genuinely can't understand why people question it.

I think the really troubling question, inerrantist (sic) or not is the issue Wood has raised about the commandments. I'm still chewing on that.

And Martin thanks so much for putting me in the same bracket as the "illiberal rationalists" whoever they are. They can come and join me in my ever increasing merry band of people who accept these passages because they have some sort of mental deficiency/inferiority complex. [Roll Eyes]

[edited to comment on this nugget]

Linzc wrote
quote:
This does not prevent you seeing it as something from which we can learn of God and his ways - it simply means that the lesson isn't "Go thou and do likewise."
Sigh. As I have said many times, taking the passage to be historically true but in the context of the whole Bible still means that the lesson isn't "Go thou and do likewise". Saying the writers were in error is not the only way out of that particular difficulty.

[ 14. July 2004, 08:04: Message edited by: Leprechaun ]
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
Hermit

quote:
it is a purely human emotion to feel greatly disturbed at death, especially human death, more especially human deaths clustered together in a "tragic" event such as a genocide or an earthquake or whatever.
[Projectile]

You got it folks. The holocaust, the Rwandan massacres - they were only "tragic" in inverted commas, and only because we feeble humans are programmed to feel that way. Nothing inherently bad about them.

But, Hermit, I thank you for showing where uncritical acceptance of the OT genocides leads. Sanc - was this what you were asking about earlier?
 
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 
There's some useful almost-Dead-Horse argument going on about whether the antis are proposing a non-literal reading because of a horror of death, which is all very interesting but it's not Wood's point.

I think (correct me if I'm wrong) Wood's point can be seen more clearly if you focus on God apparently commanding someone else to do the killing - that is, what effect would it have on the Israelites if this were true? It would probably teach them that genocide, racism, baby-killing and all-round extermination of their enemies was what God wanted them to do. Is this why you say that it's irrelevent whether it happened that way or not, because to those reading the text that's what it seems to say? If so, Luigi's point about modern Jewish beliefs seems pertinent.

Is this the Gospel? Is this what Jesus taught us? Were his calls to repent actually saying, "Rise up, grab your swords and wipe out this evil Roman Empire, and when you're finished, get started on the rest of the unholy Gentiles!"? They certainly don't read that way to me.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
More Hermit:

quote:
Yes, now you've got it! God's will is the absolute reference point by which we can measure good and evil. And if it's not, then we've got much bigger problems on our hands than a genocide.
We're back to 1984 again aren't we? Can I re-write a bit of Orwell's masterpiece?

"Does this absolute morality exist somewhere, Winston?" asked O'Brien
"It exists in written codes, and in people's hearts." replied Winston
"So if we control the codes, and people's hearts, then we control morality, do we not?"
"You have not controlled mine" replied Winston
"On the contrary" said O'Brien, "You have not controlled it."

This is what I will not do. I will not let someone control my heart - to tell me that massacres and genocides are not inherently wrong. They are. But how can I communicate that to someone who seems to be inherently amoral - there are no moral absolutes - morality is merely a game of Simon Says with God as Simon.

quote:
Part of the preparation was killing those who murdered, broke his Sabbath, or stumbled while carrying the collection of His laws (the first two done by the Israelites as commanded, the third directly by God or angel). Another part was killing the people who were tormenting and murdering the official welcoming committee. I just don't have a problem with that. Honestly, I don't have all that much regard for people, myself included
This really, really scares me. Doesn't it scare you? What would it take to turn you into an inquisitor, a torturer or a member of a terrorist cell?

For me it would take a pre-frontal lobotomy. For those who take this line, I fear it might just take a good theological and logical argument that it's what God wants.

[ 14. July 2004, 08:30: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
There's some useful almost-Dead-Horse argument going on about whether the antis are proposing a non-literal reading because of a horror of death, which is all very interesting but it's not Wood's point.

I think (correct me if I'm wrong) Wood's point can be seen more clearly if you focus on God apparently commanding someone else to do the killing - that is, what effect would it have on the Israelites if this were true? It would probably teach them that genocide, racism, baby-killing and all-round extermination of their enemies was what God wanted them to do. Is this why you say that it's irrelevent whether it happened that way or not, because to those reading the text that's what it seems to say? If so, Luigi's point about modern Jewish beliefs seems pertinent.

Is this the Gospel? Is this what Jesus taught us? Were his calls to repent actually saying, "Rise up, grab your swords and wipe out this evil Roman Empire, and when you're finished, get started on the rest of the unholy Gentiles!"? They certainly don't read that way to me.
Indeed. On one occasion the disciples went on about bringing fire from heaven on unbelieving cites "like Elijah did" - trying to apply just such OT lessons.

Jesus rebuked them. He didn't say "That was then; this is now". He didn't say "Under the circumstances of those days it was the right thing to do, but we're trying a different tactic now".

He said "You don't know what spirit you belong to". In other words, this smiting, killing and so on is not the way I (God, remember?) work..

There seems to be a strong gospel basis for doing what we "liberals" and "leftwing Christians" are doing.

For myself, mind, I call it "trying to find a way I can remain a Christian and not be one of the bitter ex-Christians Seeker talks about."
 
Posted by Sebastian (# 7494) on :
 
All of this boils down to the perceived nature of God for us humans.

Is God's nature holy? Personally I believe so.

Here's one small analogy for this (remember, this is an analogy, it of course can be twisted out of it's context)..
Here' goes,

We humans create computers. Computers have absolutely zero chance of fully comprehending computers.

Why? Because we humans can't begin to even understand ourselves fully.

We are created beings (those who don't believe this - there's other discussion forums for this specific topic) and even then, we're a bad copy of what we originally were (Thanks a lot Adam). So our ability to understand God has diminished since that time, and our own nature is corrupted.

If we humans can't begin to understand ourselves, what chance do we have to begin to fully understand God.

Let alone judge HIM - Judge God?! Our perceptions are so tragically limited. [Ultra confused]

A lot of this boils down to what seems "fair" - CS Lewis in his book "Mere Christianity" made a great essay on that very topic, and another good point is made in "The Abolition of Man" where he speaks of how debators miss so much because their focus is on debates, their viewpoints, their narrow perspectives.

Now one thing here - I don't claim to be something great - I'm not (see my quote below). If I live this day right - I escape being a fool myself.

Anyway - my whole point here (and really, I do have one) is that for all who may doubt God's goodness, kindness, etc - in light of the severe judgements executed against entire nations depicted in the Old Testament -
.. heh - perhaps we ought to ask God for enlightment.

Perhaps the only way to understand such accounts, events, Old Testament accounts is to ask God himself. It boils down to if I'm ready to judge God myself - to condemn his nature or if I'm open to another alternative -

- And that - an alternative my (human) mind can not concoct through mere logic and analysis.

I personally believe this entire topic is a topic that can only be resolved through ... faith.

And when I say faith, I'm talking about a time-developed relationship with God (and that's another topic entirely, and I'm sure someone can and quite likely will easily twist my last paragraph here into something I never intended it to be).

Those doubting God - I respectfully request - have you (please don't laugh this off) have you tried asking God for answers to these questions?

And to those who may choose to twist my words, I very respectfully and kindly ask them to read the following first... (the book of Job Chapter 28)
http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&passage=job+28

Sebastian

OK, Lastly, For those who don't want to hear about 'faith' being something that would help one understand all this, try this link:
http://www.rationalchristianity.net/genocide.html
 
Posted by Little Weed (# 4402) on :
 
quote:
Oh stop being silly. Of course you don't. We've been through this.
Its not the same, because God causes people's deaths every day. At the very least he allows it when he could stop it. If a person did this they would be behaving immorally.
Now I know some people have problems with the "different rules apply to God than us" but in the case of death, this is so patently true I genuinely can't understand why people question it.
Leprechaun, may I give a different view? If you look at God's creation as a whole it appears to work by predictable rules. The more we find out about nature the more we understand cause and effect and how inter-related things are. There is simply no observable evidence that the way these rules operate suddenly becomes arbitrary or inexplicable. Even the things our technology is incapable of predicting precisely, such as earthquakes, are very likely to be possible in the future.

I know Christians say, "the Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away" but do you believe that God takes decisions to make us die in a particular way at a particular time? If he does I can't see any evidence of it. We have not only the bible but his creation all around us and I cannot see that he interferes actively with the rules of his universe except through influencing the minds of human beings who believe in him. Doesn't that phrase go on, "Blessed be the name of the Lord"? In other words, whatever happens to us we will praise the Lord.

In his wisdom he has created the universe as it is and all the evidence seems to me that he has constrained himself by the rules he has set up, including giving us free will. Even on a literal reading of Genesis he delegated some of his power over the earth to Adam. As I read it and as I see it in his creation it is up to us to do our best to eliminate hunger, suffering and preventable deaths, whilst accepting the natural cycle of birth and death as part of the way the universe is made. He wants us to because he loves us.

I don't expect you to agree, but do you accept that this can be a valid Christian way of understanding death, that he suffers with those who die and those who mourn, not that he inflicts death and suffering on us?
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Those doubting God - I respectfully request - have you (please don't laugh this off) have you tried asking God for answers to these questions?
[Killing me] [Help] [Killing me]

[Mode=Irony]My God, I never thought of that![/Mode]
 
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Little Weed:

I don't expect you to agree, but do you accept that this can be a valid Christian way of understanding death, that he suffers with those who die and those who mourn, not that he inflicts death and suffering on us?
I don't agree, but certainly accept this is a very Christian way of looking at it, with a good pedigree in the church! [Smile]
Nevertheless, I think you are still left with the difficulty that God could stop death but does not. And that if there was a person in that situation, with that ability who did nothing we would hold them morally responsible.
In other words, there are rules to the universe, but God could change them to avoid death and does not. That is only one (very small, and I think morally negligible step) from saying God causes death.
I believe because God is the creator this doesn't make him evil. It is right that this is God's job - to give an take away - as such. How do you reconcile that?
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
Sebastian, you wrote:
quote:
We are created beings (those who don't believe this - there's other discussion forums for this specific topic) and even then, we're a bad copy of what we originally were (Thanks a lot Adam). So our ability to understand God has diminished since that time, and our own nature is corrupted.

If we humans can't begin to understand ourselves, what chance do we have to begin to fully understand God.

Let alone judge HIM - Judge God?! Our perceptions are so tragically limited.
Well, with you here, more or less, though I wouldn't lay all the blame on Adam, but no-one here, as far as I can see, has suggested that we should judge God.

As a matter of fact I do believe that we have an inherent knowledhge, however distorted, of what is right and what is wrong, at least as far as the big issues. I think I could make a pretty fair case for this to be biblical teaching. I believe that to arise out of what God considers to be right and wrong. I don't think it has anything to do with the enlightenment, liberal rationalism or anything else. It's how we are made. Of course, that's not to say it's irrational, of course it is deeply rational, but that's just a by product of the nature of creation.

Furthermore, God expects us to act upon that knowledge. Here again, I don't think that this is in dispute if you take the scriptures seriously. (They also teach we are likely to fail, but that's another point).

It's not a matter of what seems fair, it's a matter of whether or not right, wrong, good, evil, love, hate, have any objective meaning at all. For if God is, as I believe, and as Jesus demonstrates, the source of right, good, love, and the enemy of wrong, evil and hate, how could he instruct his children to do what he hates. Here again, I think I am on strong scriptural ground.

I apologise to Lep for hinting at the "i" word, and, believe me, it's not intended as a side-swipe, but to judge the scriptures in the light of the whole scriptures, including Jesus' incarnation, and to conclude that on some occasions, the scriptures attribute to God commands that he never made, is not to sit in judgement on God, but to do what He intends us to do, to engage with Him.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
Sorry to double post.

With regard to the "rational Christianity" site, I have to say that I find it to be neither.
 
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:

With regard to the "rational Christianity" site, I have to say that I find it to be neither.
Even I must admit to finding "beheading is quite a painless way of dying" as a pretty weak rationalisation of killing children. Although I think you may be being a little harsh on the site as a whole JJ.

(Apology accepted BTW - I know you understand inerrancy, it was the "inerrantists are dangerous genocidal maniacs in the closet" type comments that were winding me up.)
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
Leprechaun, IF you are a fully five petalled, now-is-the-only-day-of-salvation, burn forever you bastards that's what you were made for Calvinist, me old flower, then you are entirely welcome.

The liberal rationalists position has still much to be critiqued, mind. The culpability of their God is reduced by how much for not ordering Joshua and other Bronze Age Jews directly to commit genocide? And passively watching? Wringing His hands off hands.

Again, is it not possible for God to create without evolution or does He create despite evolution? Is He powerless to step in to Salvation-History by His ahimsa non-intervention policy? Must creation suffer hundreds of millions of years of pain (it's about 300 million since the first geologically recorded life extinction event, 600 million since the pre-Cambrian life - and predation - explosion) with Him waiting Ho Te like at the top of the pantheistic evolutionary mountain?

Bastard.

Useless, voyeuristic, sadistic bastard.

Oh, I forget, He's omnipathic, so He's a masochist too, perhaps.

Every critique here or anywhere else against YHWH as being accurately portrayed before He incarnated based, loosely, on His words when He was, uses category errors, to say the least. Loses the plot: He is the same, yesterday, today and forever. We aren't.

And KLB - Hermit is being HONEST. We so vastly overrate ourselves.
 
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sebastian:
Those doubting God - I respectfully request - have you (please don't laugh this off) have you tried asking God for answers to these questions?
I'm not entirely certain who you are categorising as "doubters of God".

But have I tried asking him? Yep, you bet. Absolutely. In prayer for 25 years. Including prayers like "OK, God, what do I do with today's Psalms? Is it really OK for me to pray for you to crush my enemies or does the crushing of physical enemies only apply to the Psalmist? And why is it A Good Thing for anyone to pray that their enemies be destroyed?" Answers in prayer (which are admittedly always personal and subjective) were things like "Do you REALLY think that's what I'm about? You need to understand that I love ALL my creation. Even those who you cannot love."

I also believe that a good part of the answer God gave me was leading me to time-honoured theology that helped me see scripture differently and which stood squarely inside Christian tradition. I believe that part of the answer for me was God leading me to Methodism and Methodist theology (not that I'm saying that "Methodism is the only right theology"; I'm saying it was what I needed to trust in God again.)

Now - if I'm one of your "doubters of God" - what do you make of that? (Assuming the answer was "supposed" to be "No, it never occurred to any of us to ask God.") Either God leads different people in different ways (which I'm personally happy to accept) or God can bring us into relationship with him even if our theology isn't perfect (which I personally believe), or one of us is utterly wrong and doomed to eternal punishment (assuming I fall into your category of a "doubter of God").
 
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Those doubting God - I respectfully request - have you (please don't laugh this off) have you tried asking God for answers to these questions?
[Killing me] [Help] [Killing me]

[Mode=Irony]My God, I never thought of that![/Mode]
I have to say, I thought of that sort of response too, [brick wall] but I went for the serious one.
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
Little Weed

quote:
I don't expect you to agree, but do you accept that this can be a valid Christian way of understanding death, that he suffers with those who die and those who mourn, not that he inflicts death and suffering on us?
If substituting AND for NOT is.
 
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:
Originally posted by Little Weed:

I don't expect you to agree, but do you accept that this can be a valid Christian way of understanding death, that he suffers with those who die and those who mourn, not that he inflicts death and suffering on us?
I don't agree, but certainly accept this is a very Christian way of looking at it, with a good pedigree in the church! [Smile]
Nevertheless, I think you are still left with the difficulty that God could stop death but does not. And that if there was a person in that situation, with that ability who did nothing we would hold them morally responsible.
In other words, there are rules to the universe, but God could change them to avoid death and does not. That is only one (very small, and I think morally negligible step) from saying God causes death.
I believe because God is the creator this doesn't make him evil. It is right that this is God's job - to give an take away - as such. How do you reconcile that?
Wow, I actually understand this argument for the first time, ever. Seriously. Thank you.

However, for me, there is still a big ethical difference between a God who gives his creation free will and then allows that creation to operate according to its free will, obedience and rebellion and between a God who intervenes in the system to commit acts which, if humans did them, would be considered unethical and immoral.

In the construct of Woods "PoMo restated" OP question (which I'm not entirely certain I understand 100%), your solution removes the problem of "What do we make of a God who does this?" but doesn't really answer the problem of "What do we make of a narrative where human beings are told by God to kill in order for his will to be fulfilled?" Unless we accept the idea that God actually physically talked to these people, how did they know that genocide was God's will?

[ 14. July 2004, 10:12: Message edited by: Seeker963 ]
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
Martin - Hermit was being honest?

Good-ho. So was I.
 
Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 
Phew. Right. Time to talk with people.

Incidentally, before I begin, can I say, Karl, your Stockport Syndrome* idea deserved a lot more opprobrium than it got. I buried my head in my hands with disbelief when you came up with that one.

I can see where you're coming from, but to attribute a different take on faith to a psychiatric condition... that's pushing it, mate.

Even if** they are wrong.

quote:
Posted by Luigi:
I believe that it is the apparent affirmation of a genocidal act that is problematic to you.
Sort of.

quote:
As far as I can see there is no convincing way of reading the text in any plausibly alternative way that is plausible.
Yep.

quote:
I also think that consequently there were almost certainly real barbaric acts that followed such a brutal assertion.
Oh, definitely.

quote:
I know this is not primarily your problem but it is at least part of the problem for me. Even if it is just because it is more likely that barbaric acts followed it due to it being present in the text.
Weirdly, that barbaric acts happened is not so much of a problem for me. I studied ancient history and lit. in university for eight years, and once you get into the heads of the ancients, you realise that it was a very different world, then.

But people still felt grief, anger, hate over killing.

And can I echo the person who pointed out that just because murders happen, it doesn't mean they're not wrong. People do stuff that's wrong all the time.

quote:
Making this passage into a metaphor or into fiction is a far too facile a get out clause for me.
Oh, totally. It's basically side-stepping the issue.

quote:
The fact that this seems to be in such tension with certain parts of Jesus' teaching is also problematic. There is tension and then there is schizophrenia and this reads as schizophrenia to me.
Well, you mean Multiple Personality Disorder, actually***. Whatever, it's the inconsistency - which is clearly not a problem for Hermit, etc. - that niggles. So, yeah, I get you.

quote:
(I know some will say that Jesus articulated some very violent judgements. Well if his more violent statements equate in some way to the OT order to commit genocide then for me Jesus becomes totally unreliable and schizophrenic. I would happily stop following him, if those who believe this can convince me that his message and the OT message contained in these passages are consistent with each other.)
I get where you're coming from here, too.

Just as well they don't, then.

quote:
Finally although I want to understand the historical context of the time, I also want a text that isn’t totally misleading unless you are a fully trained Biblical scholar.
Yes! GOAL! YES! YES! YES!

It's got to make sense to the man on the street who doesn't have a MTh. If it doesn't, what use it it?

quote:
So for me I want an answer that both stands up to the most detailed and well-informed contextualisation but that also is accessible to those that do not have the benefit of rarefied Western scholarship.

In other words I want the answer to emerge from the text itself as well as match rigorous research.
Exactly my thoughts.

quote:
Do we have a reasonable amount of common ground here?
I think so.

quote:
The biggest difference I see is that it is not a faith defining issue for you but for me it is.
To be honest, I'm finding it an entertaining intellectual exercise. I'm quite abstract about it, really.

quote:
I would agree that I am very happy with a faith that raises as many or more questions than it answers. But I also have to have a faith where there is a point at which I could decide it is nonsense.
It's a line I walk regularly. Again, yeah. I sympathise.

quote:
I am curious as to how much Psyduck’s position answered your question as I suspect I am coming from a fairly similar position.
The Pokémon was pretty helpful. But then, he usually is.

Right. So much for Luigi.

Now, Leprechaun posted this:

quote:
Posted by The Irish stereotype:
Anyway, I think its an oversimplification to say that out emotional response is divinely ordained. In a sense yes - because I think God wants us to look at those passages and think - eek that is awful. That's the essence of the lesson. I think that's the only answer to the question of why its left in.
What, really? So, hang on...

quote:
God wants us to see him in this way. (but not JUST in this way - which is why he gives us the rest of the Bible too - especially the minor prophets which contain descriptions of worse slughter to come, juxtaposed in the next verse with protestations of infinite love. Work that one out why don't you)
God wants us to see Him as an orderer of genocide? As well as being loving, honourable, consistent, and just?

quote:
And in a sense no, because part of the essence of our sin is to think we as humans are more important than we actually are.
Important enough for one third of the Trinity to give up His Divine status and die for us, you mean?

I'd have thought that was pretty important. You can't have the "we are insects" concept alongside the "personal Saviour" concept. They contradict.

quote:
It is, like anything, an emotional response that is right, and yet twisted by sin - which is putting our and our race's own value over and above that of God's purposes.
So, um, we're right to be shocked, but only inasmuch as it highlights how we're wrong to question God's purposes?

This response is probably twisted by my sinful nature, right, but I find that doesn't make a huge amount of sense to me.

I'll put my confusion with that to one side, and grapple with the Burroughsian**** legend that it Martin PC Not (&Ship's Biohazard)...

quote:
Posted by Martin:
Wood, thou art the fairest of them all.
Nice of you to say so. I looked in the mirror this morning and thought so myself.

quote:
What would you do (for posit's sake), if when you meet gentle Jesus, meek and mild, he says, 'Yeah, it was me. YHWH. Drowned the world. Nuked the Cities of the Plain - not for being gay of course. Killed 185,000 Assyrians. One million Ethiopians. In one go each. God knows how many Egyptians. They're all here, under my wing, say 'Hi', guys.'
Very, very good question.

Assuming that in Heaven we're not immediately hit with a wave of existential understanding of all of God's purposes, past, present and future, I'd say "hi" back and, during the inevitable question-and-answer session, I'd ask very humbly and politely what the official explanation was.

I have faith that any authentic explanation offered by God would be reasonable and make perfect sense, and so, therefore, I'd accept it.

I hope that's the straight answer you're looking for.

Oh, and Martin? "eschatologically" is spelled with an "o".

-

Now, an aside to the inerrantists among us, but mainly to Hermit:

I was under the impression that an inerrantist view of Scripture tells us that death entered the world after the Fall, and that God sees it as a Bad Thing.

-

Right. Linzc took issue quite eloquently with some of my post-modernist ramblings, and deserves a reply.

quote:
Posted by Linzc:
I would argue that indeed your reading is 'flat' (in the sense implied by Esmerelda's post)
It's only "flat" inasmuch as I'm sticking to what the text says; but you should be aware by now I'm no inerrantist.

quote:
and I base that on the fact that the text is so problematic for you. The text is only problematic if you feel an obligation to affirm the idea within the text that God desires (these particular) genocides.
No, it's problematic because God affirms genocides within the text.

quote:
But surely the narrative is only a sticking point because of the particular authority you give it and (IMO) the specific way you see that authority operating. If Fred Axemurderer says "God told me to do it", that doesn't cause you any moral dilemna, does it? You simply chalk this up to an error on Fred's behalf which doesn't affect your view of God. In the case in point, the writers of the Biblical narrative say, "God told us to do it". Why can't you simply chalk it up as their error?
Because it doesn't work like that. We're not looking at some isolated nut here, we're looking at a culture-defining, history-defining text. we're looking at the narrative of a people which until fairly recently was given by most people in the West some sort of authority.

More importantly, it's completely impossible to read something without our own assumptions informing it. And the thing is, true or not, it's part of one of the defining narratives of our faith and of European history.

quote:
This does not prevent you seeing it as something from which we can learn of God and his ways - it simply means that the lesson isn't "Go thou and do likewise."
I didn't think the lesson was that anyway, to be frank. I don't think a single poerson here is arguing that.

quote:
One more angle. You say that you are wanting to work within the framework of the narrative, but in fact you're not. You are importing your own external moral critique in evaluating the actions described in the text as morally repugnant (or sinful).
Yep. See my comment above.

quote:
Within the framework of the narrative, the genocides are not morally reprehensible but are morally praiseworthy. If this is the case, then lesson to be learnt from the text is, "You should obey God - that is morally praiseworthy." The next step is to determine what obedience to God requires in our own culture and with our own moral understanding (which as Christians is of course informed by Revelation). I doubt that genocide is on the menu.
I quite agree. But it still doesn't take away the sticking point that God commands something inconsistent and morally reprehensible in the text.

-

quote:
Grey Face:
I think (correct me if I'm wrong) Wood's point can be seen more clearly if you focus on God apparently commanding someone else to do the killing - that is, what effect would it have on the Israelites if this were true? It would probably teach them that genocide, racism, baby-killing and all-round extermination of their enemies was what God wanted them to do. Is this why you say that it's irrelevent whether it happened that way or not, because to those reading the text that's what it seems to say? If so, Luigi's point about modern Jewish beliefs seems pertinent.
That's sort of where I'm coming from...

quote:
Is this the Gospel? Is this what Jesus taught us? Were his calls to repent actually saying, "Rise up, grab your swords and wipe out this evil Roman Empire, and when you're finished, get started on the rest of the unholy Gentiles!"? They certainly don't read that way to me.
...but - whoa - this isn't. Bit of an extreme extrapolation there.

Since I started on this post, about a dozen more posts have appeared! [Paranoid]

Humph. Let's see.

quote:
Posted by Sebastian:
Those doubting God -
I'm not doubting God. I'm doubting whether our take on a particularly difficult bit of Scripture is what God wants.

quote:
I respectfully request - have you (please don't laugh this off) have you tried asking God for answers to these questions?
Um, I thought I was. I'm just asking other people too.

Besides, sometimes God doesn't give a straight answer. It'd be nice if God still spoke to us with a bass baritone coming out of a shaft of light, though...

quote:
Leprechaun again:
In other words, there are rules to the universe, but God could change them to avoid death and does not. That is only one (very small, and I think morally negligible step) from saying God causes death.
Um, Fall? death being man's (and woman's, these days!*****) resonsibility

Anyway, it's still a step. It's still not quite there. Having an idea which is a step away from another is not the same as holding that other idea.

________________
*Yes, I know it's actually Stockholm Syndrome, but the slip amused me, so I left it in.

**Note emphasis.

***Know Your Psychiatric Conditions! [Smile]

****William, not Edgar Rice.

*****No one knows how much we miss Rev. Gerald. Come back to us! We need you!

[ 14. July 2004, 10:21: Message edited by: Wood ]
 
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
The liberal rationalists position has still much to be critiqued, mind. The culpability of their God is reduced by how much for not ordering Joshua and other Bronze Age Jews directly to commit genocide? And passively watching? Wringing His hands off hands.
I'm raising my usual objection of "I've not seen anyone here making that argument. This is a strawman."
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
Wood - yeah, I thought I got away lightly.

What I was saying was actually "search me?". As I said at the time, it wasn't a serious suggestion. But being the dreadful Googler I am, I looked it up and realised you could, in a cynical moment (of which I have many) certainly make the necesary connections.

But the real answer, as I think people realised, hence the absence of a "Calling KLB to Hell" thread, is that I do not have a clue how people love the unjust genocide God.
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
Seeker963, ole stick, if one can't posit, as the fairest Wood can, that YHWH used a bit of stick before He was nailed to one and will again, whilst fully believing in His interregnum, one is a liberal rationalizer, one posits. A secular humanist in Christian clothing.
 
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:


quote:
And in a sense no, because part of the essence of our sin is to think we as humans are more important than we actually are.
Important enough for one third of the Trinity to give up His Divine status and die for us, you mean?

I'd have thought that was pretty important. You can't have the "we are insects" concept alongside the "personal Saviour" concept. They contradict.

quote:
It is, like anything, an emotional response that is right, and yet twisted by sin - which is putting our and our race's own value over and above that of God's purposes.
So, um, we're right to be shocked, but only inasmuch as it highlights how we're wrong to question God's purposes?
Wood - insects v personal Saviour. Not a contradiction. God does not value us, and give his life for us because we are valuable. He does it because he is love. It is the extent of his love that he loves what is unlovable. That's grace. He, in is grace, takes what is, in itself worthless and makes is worthy. That is grace. It ceases to be so of God was just paying a fair price for an expensive trinket he accidentally lost.

We're right to be shocked that God values human life less than he values his own holiness. That's the shock of the passage. That's what he's teaching us. [Eek!] That's why its scary, and that's why I struggle with these passages as much as the next person - that's why I cling to the cross as my only hope.
 
Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Wood - insects v personal Saviour. Not a contradiction. God does not value us, and give his life for us because we are valuable. He does it because he is love. It is the extent of his love that he loves what is unlovable. That's grace. He, in is grace, takes what is, in itself worthless and makes is worthy. That is grace. It ceases to be so of God was just paying a fair price for an expensive trinket he accidentally lost.

We're right to be shocked that God values human life less than he values his own holiness. That's the shock of the passage. That's what he's teaching us. [Eek!] That's why its scary, and that's why I struggle with these passages as much as the next person - that's why I cling to the cross as my only hope.
That's an authentically Calvinist position which has been held by a lot of great Christians the shoelaces of etc, and I respect it, but I have to be honest, Lep, the whole "we are worthless but God loves us anyway" approach reminds me why I rejected full on Calvinism one point at a time (I've only got the "T" in my collection now, and only kinda sorta) some years ago.

What I will say is that I do agree that under the moral framework you've represented here, this does at least make a logical argument for a sensible reading of the passages under discussion.
 
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:

What I will say is that I do agree that under the moral framework you've represented here, this does at least make a logical argument for a sensible reading of the passages under discussion.
Er...thanks, I think. Incidentally, the reason I didn't call Karl to Hell is because I'd be much more scared of what he would say to me in Hell, that I was annoyed by his comment. [Waterworks]
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
Lep, you wrote
quote:
God does not value us, and give his life for us because we are valuable.
No, indeed. We are valuable because He gave his life for us! [Biased]

quote:
We're right to be shocked that God values human life less than he values his own holiness.
But, even if I agreed with you, and I do not [Devil] , the Canaanites were no threat to God's holiness, unless you take the view that merely the presence of sin is an affront to His holiness; in which case the incarnation is a refutation of your premise, if you see what I mean. [Ultra confused]
 
Posted by corpusdelicti (# 5124) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:
Originally posted by corpusdelicti:


Do you really beleive that genocide is acceptable because we would all die anyway? Follow this logic and you conclude that the Holocaust was fine because alll Jews die sooner or later.

Oh stop being silly. Of course you don't. We've been through this.
Its not the same, because God causes people's deaths every day. At the very least he allows it when he could stop it. If a person did this they would be behaving immorally.
Now I know some people have problems with the "different rules apply to God than us" but in the case of death, this is so patently true I genuinely can't understand why people question it.
I'm quite sure that you Lep, Hermit and others think that the Holocaust was immoral. But what if we found some evidence that God had ordered it? By your argument it would cease to be immoral. So unless you can be sure that no such order existed how can you declare it to be immoral?

I know God "allows" deaths every day, and as I said before that is not the problem, it is the order, or apparent order, from God that WE should cause those deaths that is at issue here.

To put it another way, what if God had told Joshua to fornicate for the Lord, to have sex with man, woman and goat indiscriminately?

To me the problem is the same, why does Scripture contain passages where God orders an act which elsewhere in scripture is deemed immoral?

I know my original "solution" to the problem, that Jews who saw God as primarily a tribal God might think that a succesful genocide of another tribe was approved of and ordered by God, is theologically liberal. As to why God might allow such wrong ideas into scripture: God gives us free will, even to write wrong scripture.

If you think the bible can't be wrong then you need another explanation of why God can order acts He himself declares immoral. I have yet to see a convincing explanation on this thread.
 
Posted by Peppone (# 3855) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
YHWH used a bit of stick before He was nailed to one and will again, whilst fully believing in His interregnum.
God is love, you know, that's like his nature, but only for a little while. Then he'll change "back". [into what?]

That is what you're saying, right? This is what you're representing as orthodox Christianity, and to believe different is secular humanism?
 
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Seeker963, ole stick, if one can't posit, as the fairest Wood can, that YHWH used a bit of stick before He was nailed to one and will again, whilst fully believing in His interregnum, one is a liberal rationalizer, one posits. A secular humanist in Christian clothing.
[Confused] I don't Wood thinking anything like that. It's Martin PC Not, I believe, who keeps hoisting this particular strawman. And I don't think Martin is being as simplistic as you paint him either; he does, however, appear to fall back on the strawman. Which gives me the impression (as I've said before) that he doesn't understand where the rest of us are coming from.
 
Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Er...thanks, I think.
Hey! I've just told you that you make some sort of consistent logical sense! It's just not the sort of sense of most of the people arguing here, is all.

How often have you been told that on the Ship?
 
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
No, indeed. We are valuable because He gave his life for us! [Biased]
Notwithstanding your wink I would alter your statement to say we are valued because he gave his life for us. Which is something quite different.

quote:
But, even if I agreed with you, and I do not [Devil] , the Canaanites were no threat to God's holiness, unless you take the view that merely the presence of sin is an affront to His holiness; in which case the incarnation is a refutation of your premise, if you see what I mean.
Sorry - inclarity. They were a threat to his holiness in that they threatened the purity of his people (nb - before people start saying "you believe in genocide today then" I do not believe that this "purity" today has anything to do with race) which has been pointed out is the articulated reason for the command.

Corpus - read my posts. I have made it clear that I believe Jesus gives us ample reason to assert that no command comes from God to do such things ANY MORE. I could explain this again, but its all there. Just scroll back a bit.

[ 14. July 2004, 11:10: Message edited by: Leprechaun ]
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by corpusdelicti:
To put it another way, what if God had told Joshua to fornicate for the Lord, to have sex with man, woman and goat indiscriminately?
Then the Bible would be a much more interesting read! [Biased]
 
Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Seeker963, ole stick, if one can't posit, as the fairest Wood can, that YHWH used a bit of stick before He was nailed to one and will again, whilst fully believing in His interregnum, one is a liberal rationalizer, one posits. A secular humanist in Christian clothing.
[Confused] I don't Wood thinking anything like that. It's Martin PC Not, I believe, who keeps hoisting this particular strawman. And I don't think Martin is being as simplistic as you paint him either; he does, however, appear to fall back on the strawman. Which gives me the impression (as I've said before) that he doesn't understand where the rest of us are coming from.
If I had any idea what the Hell Martin reckoned I was saying, Seeker, I might be in a position to agree or disagree with you.

Something tells me he's not quite got where I'm coming from, though.
 
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 
Wood - sorry for the extrapolation. I got carried away [Biased]

Karl's actually raised an interesting question for me. I seem to remember C S Lewis writing something like "God is so humble he'll even accept people who come to him through fear of Hell." Then there's this book I have that says the beginning of wisdom is fear (or awe, if you like) of God.

<Extreme speculation> Could genuine love grow from a Stockholm-Syndrome-like effect? I've heard many testimonies from people saying that their initial conversion was actually a recognition of the deep shit they were in, yet they plainly end up loving God. </>

Lep, I'm going to pull a fast one on you. If you're prepared to argue that the definition of moral is what God does, then I can argue that valuable is anything that God values. [Smile]
 
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:

Lep, I'm going to pull a fast one on you. If you're prepared to argue that the definition of moral is what God does, then I can argue that valuable is anything that God values. [Smile]
I have no issue with this, if valuable=valued by God, rather than having intrinsic value. (FWIW I'm keen to avoid an etymological tangent on the word value) It is the accusation that God breaks some moral order external to himself by not valuing the Amalekites enough on this occasion that I was against. God obviously values, on this occasion, his purpose, whatever that was, more than the lives of the Amalekites.

What I was saying is that we our value comes only from what God does. Therefore for God to treat some or all of us as without value then that is his prerogative. He doesn't break any rule he isn't allowed to.
 
Posted by Alaric the Goth (# 511) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
....
What I was saying was actually "search me?". As I said at the time, it wasn't a serious suggestion. But being the dreadful Googler I am, I looked it up and realised you could, in a cynical moment (of which I have many) certainly make the necesary connections.

But the real answer, as I think people realised, hence the absence of a "Calling KLB to Hell" thread, is that I do not have a clue how people love the unjust genocide God.
[Aside: Have you considered changing your 'Ship' name to 'Karl - Dreadful Googler'? It would be amusing, true(!!) and wouldn't wind (people like) me up in the way the 'L-B' tag has been known to do!]

I hesitate to join in (have I contributed already - I don't remember?) this multi-page discussion, partly because I don't want to read every one of the umpteen posts (I have read many, I might add) and partly beacuse I think Lep [Overused] has said much of what might be said about the side of the argument I lean towards much better than I could. And, it has to be said, Wood has said some very pertinent stuff as well. As have some others (when you can understand them (Martin PC..anyone?).

Here goes for a (perhaps) simplistic take on the events associated: God 'chooses' his people, the Jews. God wants them out of slavery in Egypt. God wants them to have a land of their own and wants them, when there, to know and follow His Laws, commands, etc. and to serve no other gods. God wants to fully provide for them (unless they turn away, in which case cessation of His provison will be a necessary but hard lesson).

He provides them a way out of Egypt. He provides them with food, etc. in the wilderness. He provides His Laws. He know very well which land He wants them to live in, that awaits them. Various peoples are there who should not be there (because they/their leaders have made sinful decisions(?), or Satan, knowing something of what God wants/intends, has 'inspired' the tribes concerned to be where God does not want them(?).

God has complete foreknowledge regarding what sin/error the People of Israel are going to be led into by the contact they have with those they do allow to remain in the land of Canaan. Perhaps the greater the Canaanite presence, the greater the error Israel will be led into? (Even at the extreme leading to abandonment of anything to do with YHWH and His commandments.)

So 'they' (the Amalekites, etc.) have to go, in the Divine scheme of things. Their children as well? Well I am lying if I say I have any easy explanations. Did God know that greater evil would occur if Amalekites (etc.) of any age/sex were spared? I don't know.

I do know that at that time, the future plans of God for all of humanity (salvation and the bringing in of the kingdom) had their route to achievement via the Jews. Maybe, through intermarriage with non-Jews, God's people could/would not be a 'Holy People in (His) Holy Land)? God wanted to show them that He provided, that He was the (best/only) way for them to inherit all that He had for them. That it was His to give and theirs to 'take', and He wasn't into 'half measures' - all of Canaan was His gift to the Jews, not all apart from a few (say) Amalekite strongholds.

The above may have repeated some arguments already used, and may well be No Help Whatsoever. But it is all I can offer in this debate.
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
Er, Peppone, how could I possibly say, as an orthodox Christian, that if YHWH was love when He was Jesus that He wasn't love before and won't be after? When God killed, kills, will kill again, He was, is, will be Love. By definition.

What don't I get, Wood, old chip, old son? Even on this multithreaded thread? Is there some nuance that eludes me?

And Seeker963, I didn't think he did. He took my posit and ran very well it.

I don't see you seeing a straw man either.
 
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Er, Peppone, how could I possibly say, as an orthodox Christian, that if YHWH was love when He was Jesus that He wasn't love before and won't be after? When God killed, kills, will kill again, He was, is, will be Love. By definition.

What don't I get, Wood, old chip, old son? Even on this multithreaded thread? Is there some nuance that eludes me?

And Seeker963, I didn't think he did. He took my posit and ran very well it.

I don't see you seeing a straw man either.
It's a bit like reading a Virginia Woolf novel, isn't it?
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
James Joyce also springs to mind.

Alaric - I think the fundamental problem is that your response answers the "Why did God order it" question, but not the "How can God order something like that and have a claim to be Good" question.
 
Posted by Little Weed (# 4402) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:
Originally posted by Little Weed:

I don't expect you to agree, but do you accept that this can be a valid Christian way of understanding death, that he suffers with those who die and those who mourn, not that he inflicts death and suffering on us?
I don't agree, but certainly accept this is a very Christian way of looking at it, with a good pedigree in the church! [Smile]
Thank you. [Smile]

quote:
Nevertheless, I think you are still left with the difficulty that God could stop death but does not. And that if there was a person in that situation, with that ability who did nothing we would hold them morally responsible.
In other words, there are rules to the universe, but God could change them to avoid death and does not. That is only one (very small, and I think morally negligible step) from saying God causes death.
I believe because God is the creator this doesn't make him evil. It is right that this is God's job - to give an take away - as such. How do you reconcile that?
What if God, in his infinite wisdom and knowledge found this universe (or these universes) with its natural laws, the best and only way to achieve what he wanted? He could have made a toy universe and pushed the people and oceans around at his whim, or an earth where the people were robots, obeying his every word. But what say, instead, he wants to relate to his creation. He knows that the only way to do this is to give people freedom to disobey him and that they may cause havoc on his beautiful planet earth by doing all sorts of terrible things that are completely against his nature and will. Is there a middle way? Perhaps there’s not, for him, and perhaps we get a glimpse of why this might be in Chaos Theory and how complex organisations and organisms work. Tiny adjustments may have huge effects.

Birth and death are an integral part of this creation because that’s the way it has to be. (I have been wondering whether a branch from the Tree in the Garden could ever have fallen on Adam’s head killing him outright but then I lead a sad life.) Joy and suffering are a necessary consequence, not because God wants us to suffer but because he wants us to grow, to learn to make the right decisions of our own free will and it is inevitable. Grief is the price we pay for love. The happiest marriage will most probably end in terrible tears of mourning but that doesn't stop people marrying the one they love above all others. They won't regret all those happy years they had.

I have no problem in envisaging something like this. (And no, I am not setting myself up greater than God.) I trust his goodness and that there is ultimate sense which we will one day see. What it doesn’t force me to do is to say that God deliberately causes individual deaths. I do see a moral difference.

However, if you look at where we are now, could we as his creatures stop all the senseless killings in the world? Most of them if everyone took that decision individually to throw down their weapons tomorrow. Could we stop people dying from hunger and common, treatable illnesses? Undoubtedly if we had the will to do it. Will we stop everyone dying in the end? Who knows what future medical technology will enable? Maybe we never will but we ought to look at ourselves and our responsibility for death and destruction because I don’t believe God wants any of it.
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
[Axe murder]
 
Posted by IconiumBound (# 754) on :
 
Coming at this very late I am pleasantly surprised that we finally seem to have a thread on theology that exceeds the posts for those on sexuality.

I wonder if this idea has been floated in the 10 pages thus far? Suppose that none of these wars, genocides etc actually happened. What if they were folk legends that came down from the Hebrew past to explain how they got to where they were which was the dominent tribe in the Caanan region?

Wouldn't they want to put their position in terms that made their God the author of their success? Given the times that would mean to make Him out to be a super hero sort. Put God in the forefront fighting for Israel by inventing battles that never took place.

Does this detract from the "real" point of the Old Testament, that God is the supreme author of mankind and loves the Hebrews as his chosen people? I think not. It puts those qualities into a context that was understandable to their times.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IconiumBound:
Wouldn't they want to put their position in terms that made their God the author of their success? Given the times that would mean to make Him out to be a super hero sort. Put God in the forefront fighting for Israel by inventing battles that never took place.
Yes, this idea has been floated a number of times. But it is not the actuality so much as the account that troubles Wood. The real question is: "What kind of God would allow Himself to be portrayed in such terms?"

The fact that lots of us don't actually have much trouble with this question hasn't seemed to help. It is still hard to explain. [brick wall]

[edited to add head banger]

[ 14. July 2004, 14:54: Message edited by: Freddy ]
 
Posted by Peppone (# 3855) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Er, Peppone, how could I possibly say, as an orthodox Christian,
What did you mean by "interregnum", if not the fact of Jesus being a mere temporary respite?
 
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :
 
Little W -

Your post is both articulate and moving - but I think its basically deist.

Either you're saying - God is hands off - he just lets it happen (and I still think that would make him pretty morally reprehensible if causing death is a morally reprehensible act for him)
Or you're saying God's in it with us, weeping with us, but not weeping so much that he'll actually solve our problem, even though he can. Which doesn't count for sympathy in my book. Nor erase his moral responsibility.

You see, earlier on, much earlier, I was told that saying "I don't understand why God did this act, but I trust he has his reasons" was not a satisfying answer to these issues, fair enough.

But then saying "I don't understand why God set the world up with this horrible thing called death in it, and I know he has the power to stop it but he doesn't, and I'm sure he has his reasons" is exactly the same. Except it doesn't just fail to explain the deaths of a tribe long ago, but that of every person that has ever lived.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
But then saying "I don't understand why God set the world up with this horrible thing called death in it, and I know he has the power to stop it but he doesn't, and I'm sure he has his reasons" is exactly the same. Except it doesn't just fail to explain the deaths of a tribe long ago, but that of every person that has ever lived.
First off, I don't know that we all agree that death is such a horrible thing. As I understand it, nothing is more beautiful, or more to be looked forward to, than passing out of this life and into the next. What IS horrible is killing others, and the hatred underlying the desire to do it - because this leads to "eternal death" which is life in hell.

That said, I think the definitive answer to the "God-could-stop-it-but-chooses-not-to" question was given very nicely by Little Weed. This is that if freedom is to be something real that it must be possible for God's will NOT to be done on earth as it is in heaven.

So God could stop all evil, but chooses not to do it in ways that would take away freedom.

This doesn't mean that He isn't stopping it, or that He doesn't stop it. It's just that His means seem to be a little beyond our comprehension. [Paranoid]

[ 14. July 2004, 15:34: Message edited by: Freddy ]
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
Lep,
first I would agree with you that our value is not, as such, intrinsic, but dependant on who God is (I would argue a distiction between who God is and what He does, not because the two are not in concert, my whole argument is based on the fact that they must be, but because the fundamental question is is about the nature of God, what He is like, because once we see that, we are better able to judge whether what is attributed to Him can actually be laid at His door.)

BTW, I often wonder if what Martin has got is catching - at least, that's my excuse for the above.

However, you wrote:
quote:
It is the accusation that God breaks some moral order external to himself by not valuing the Amalekites enough on this occasion that I was against.
I honestly don't think anyone has made that assertion. On the contrary, it seems to be us libruls (only joking, I'm not really [Snigger] ) who are most keen to argue that it is not an external constraint on God that makes him behave in accordance with some, equally external moral order, but His own nature, from which that moral order springs, and to which he will always be true, because He must be (if you like, will always choose to be) true to Himself (that Himself that was revealed supremely in Jesus.

I know you probably will not agree with me, but will you at least not see this as a valid argument, which does not require that God has to reference His actions to any outside authority?
 
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:

I know you probably will not agree with me, but will you at least not see this as a valid argument, which does not require that God has to reference His actions to any outside authority?
JJ, I surely will. Valid, and very persuasive, and was it not for my view of the text, I would have great sympathy with it.
As I have said, it is the "It's just wrong because it's just wrong argument" that I don't think holds. (That argument has, incidentally, been made by quite a number of people IMO)

Especially as, in my discussion with LW and Freddy, we seem to be quite happy for God to engineer creation to cause death, but not people.

[ 14. July 2004, 15:42: Message edited by: Leprechaun ]
 
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:

So God could stop all evil, but chooses not to do it in ways that would take away freedom.

Sorry to double post. So in your schema God values human freedom more than human life? (Not an aggressive question, but just trying to get my head round it all.)
 
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Little W -

Your post is both articulate and moving - but I think its basically deist.

Either you're saying - God is hands off - he just lets it happen (and I still think that would make him pretty morally reprehensible if causing death is a morally reprehensible act for him)
Or you're saying God's in it with us, weeping with us, but not weeping so much that he'll actually solve our problem, even though he can. Which doesn't count for sympathy in my book. Nor erase his moral responsibility.
But this is the connundrum of the "Free Will" position. I guess us "Free Willers" prefer it to "God decides in advance everything that is going to happen and even if you desire salvation, you can't have it" which is the other available connundrum. As far as I can tell, those of us who believe that God is omnipotent have only these two choices.

I don't think the Free Will God is Diest because the Diest God is uninvolved. The "Free Will God" incarnates, saves, teaches, draws people to him, changes lives and possibly even uses natural processes in a way we would call miraculous.

I don't think one can get away from theodicy with the statement "everything happens because of God's will". To me, you are still left with the problem of explaining "Why does God almost always seem to will tragedy and death? Why is an unbeliever/sinner healed but a believer dies?" I think all you have to say to that is "I submit to what God has ordained." But a free willer can submit to what God has ordained too (thinking of which, I'm struck by how, ultimately, this is all angels dancing on the head of a pin stuff).
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
Lep, you wrote
quote:
As I have said, it is the "It's just wrong because it's just wrong argument" that I don't think holds. (That argument has, incidentally, been made by quite a number of people IMO)
Well, yes, I see that, but I don't think it's necessary to draw about anyone using such a statement the inference that "It's just wrong" carries with it the idea that wrong is something that has absolute meaning when disassociated from the One who constructed the universe with that notion built in. Of course, we might speculate about a universe where wrong is not wrong, but 'tain't this one! When we say something is wrong, we mean it is absolutely wrong, at all times, in all circumstances, and for all people, be they creator or created. This is so because that is who God is, that is His nature. Wrong is that which contradicts His nature, right is that which manifests it. I don't believe that there is one set of valid values for humankind, and another for God. Rather, God's values define the valid values for humans. Where there is a divergeance between the two, that is because of, even a definition of, our sin.

Back to the medication.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:

So God could stop all evil, but chooses not to do it in ways that would take away freedom.

Sorry to double post. So in your schema God values human freedom more than human life? (Not an aggressive question, but just trying to get my head round it all.)
Yes. In the short run.

The point is that He work for the long run benefit of humanity as a whole. Allowing people in freedom to do wicked and destructive things in the short run, for the sake of freedom, provides for that.
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
Peppone, indeed, Sir.

[ 14. July 2004, 16:15: Message edited by: Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard ]
 
Posted by sanc (# 6355) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
It's led you to an image of God who is violent, murderous, genocidal, monstrous and completely unloveable. Worshippable only out of fear. A God who thinks that slaying babes in arms can be a Good Thing.

That's where I'm unwilling to go.
that's not the picture of the GOD i serve. if you worship a GOD which is the opposite of what you have described, then we're not far from serving the same GOD.

i believe in a loving, just, merciful, and at the same time powerful GOD who would, as an expression of those qualities, put out the existence of the wickeds in sodom and gomorrah who would even sodomized the angels who were sent to pass judgement on them. the canaanites were judged by GOD to be exceedingly wicked, and according to HIS judgement deserved to be annihilated as a whole.

with that picture, i will serve HIM without doubt as to HIS love and how he renders justice. who knows if the innocent babies of the cananites have heaven in reserve for them or not.
 
Posted by corpusdelicti (# 5124) on :
 
quote:

Corpus - read my posts. I have made it clear that I believe Jesus gives us ample reason to assert that no command comes from God to do such things ANY MORE. I could explain this again, but its all there. Just scroll back a bit.
Apologies Lep, my comments weren't aimed soley at you, but equally I argued many pages back that to say God ceased to make such orders at the incarnation partially gets round the issue, but it still requires a changeable, and seemingly capricious, God.

It depends on whether you believe that Jesus instituted a change in our relationship with God, and his with us, and so in God's nature, or whether he brought enlightenment of our true unchanging relationship with God.

I've always found the idea that God can change odd, it seems to imply a temporal God, which seems out of step with an omnipotent Go

[ 14. July 2004, 16:57: Message edited by: corpusdelicti ]
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
The Sodomites were NOT annihilated for being sodomites: Ezekiel 16:49 Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.

And they do FINE in the resurrection as you should well know, sanc.

Therefore so will all Canaanite babies and their mummies and daddies, no matter how depraved and doomed to depravity before death.

Who knows? Any one touched by grace.
 
Posted by sanc (# 6355) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
The Sodomites were NOT annihilated for being sodomites: Ezekiel 16:49 Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.

And they do FINE in the resurrection as you should well know, sanc.

Therefore so will all Canaanite babies and their mummies and daddies, no matter how depraved and doomed to depravity before death.

Who knows? Any one touched by grace.
no, they were not annihilated solely for that, nor did i intend that because of that they were annihilated. nor should we take it that ezekiel's descriptions is all exhaustive. to do so would mean that people in sodom did no kill lie or worship other gods.

JESUS statement about sodom being better off on judgement day is intended to warn us that "with great knowledge of GOD, comes great responsibility." israel have the torah and the prophets, but they "were like the nations round about them."
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by corpusdelicti:
I've always found the idea that God can change odd, it seems to imply a temporal God, which seems out of step with an omnipotent God
Yes it would.

The idea is not that God changes but that humanity has changed. This is what accounts for the changing picture of God

Isn't this blindingly obvious?

God has revealed Himself to humanity, a little at a time. It has been part of humanity's growth process. The world is growing up, like a child that grows to adulthood.

For children the idea that the good guys just plain kill the bad guys is fine. Respected children's literature is full of evidence of this.

But this idea just doesn't wash in thoughtful literature aimed at adults.

Humanity started in the Garden of Eden. The whole point of everything that God has done since then is to recreate that garden. Except that this future garden isn't an innocent, primitive garden, but a mature, complex, and vastly larger one - not a garden but a city, the holy city New Jerusalem, complete with the Tree of Life in the middle.

The things found in the Bible are about the difficult task of moving humanity from outside the garden into the city. It is a long and difficult process, but one that Christians are asked to believe that God can accomplish.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sanc:
nor should we take it that ezekiel's descriptions is all exhaustive. to do so would mean that people in sodom did no kill lie or worship other gods.
Is there any city where people do not kill, lie, or worship other gods? Has God destroyed all of them?


quote:

JESUS statement about sodom being better off on judgement day is intended to warn us that "with great knowledge of GOD, comes great responsibility."
So you don't take Jesus's words literally?
 
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by corpusdelicti:

I've always found the idea that God can change odd, it seems to imply a temporal God, which seems out of step with an omnipotent God
I don't think God's character changes. But I think the way he does things changes. There are certain Biblical passages that state this explicitly - Hebrews 1 for example. I don't think his ultimate purpose changes, but I think the way he gets there does. And as I said before, the Amalekite ban, and others, I think, are pictures of what is coming. It is not as if God has "turned off" this side of hs characater for good.

On a different note, it is interesting that even those who hold the "text is wrong" position still have to take the "God does some weird things that aren't very nice for his own reasons" too, in the same way people like me have to, to some extent with the passage in question. It seems God either subjugates his love for human life to
a) his own purposes OR
b) his desire for free will (which actually is his own purpose too, because he wants to give us free will so that we'll choose to love him - again his purpose)
So it comes down to - which is a better/more consistent/more Biblical view of what God thinks is more important than our life.
Hmmm. Interesting.
 
Posted by sanc (# 6355) on :
 
i have have written in other threads, that when i read the bible, i try to understand it literally if the passage dictates that it be taken literally and symbolically and contextually if it demands to be interpreted otherwise.

example, when the bible talk about sarah giving birth to a baby boy naming him isaac, i take it literally, for how can i understand it otherwise. when the bible talks about talks about beasts and horns in revelations i take it as sumbolical, for again, how could it be understood otherwise?

on the second point, yes literally sodom will be better off on judgement day than bethsaida and chorazim, but the statement of JESUS goes on to teach us that if we know GOD and HIS love but still go on sinning a greater punishment would be exacted.
 
Posted by Tuggboat (# 7001) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
quote:
Originally posted by Tuggboat:
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
quote:
Originally posted by Tuggboat:
The Fire bombing of Dresden comes to mind. The allies decimated that city and its residents to rubble. Under a loose defintion one could claim we exterminated the Dresdenites.
Small grammatical tangent:

"Decimate" means to kill one in ten of the target population. Colloquially, it means to kill a large proportion of the target population. You can only decimate people (or, I suppose, animals), not inanimate objects such as cities.

End tangent.

John
Well that fully explains why Dresden was never termed a genocide. Dresden Tangent pics It fit the definition of Holocaust though. Ritual sacrifice by fire.
Really?

Genocide is wiping out a race or a nation. Horrible as what happened at Dresden was, it was not genocide. Unless you want to call what happened in London and Coverntry genocide as well. And then we can agree on a new, extra-dictionary definition of genocide. But I suspect not.

The fact that you misused the word "decimate" has nothing to do with whether what happened at Dresden was genocide -- unless you thought decimate meant "kill the lot" -- in which case your last remark was rather snide and, I believe, ill taken.

Surely you cannot believe that in making a comment about grammar, I was in any way downplaying the importance of what happened at Dresden.

John
JOhn, I'm sorry if that came off as snide. I really meant that your correcting my definition settled it for me just as I said. I has read an author use that term who is much more published and professionally edited than us. I assume if his usage is correct only 1 in 10 died then that doesn't qualify as genocide. While there were innocent civlian casualties I thought the term meant physically leveled/wiped out rather than a percentage dead in a kill zone.

Sorry for delay getting back. Lost mobile internet connection.

Bob

[ 14. July 2004, 21:08: Message edited by: Tuggboat ]
 
Posted by Esmeralda (# 582) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Nevertheless, I think you are still left with the difficulty that God could stop death but does not. And that if there was a person in that situation, with that ability who did nothing we would hold them morally responsible.
In other words, there are rules to the universe, but God could change them to avoid death and does not. That is only one (very small, and I think morally negligible step) from saying God causes death.
Is it? Let us posit a new and radical idea (!) - that God is like a parent. I am a parent. When my son is a teenager, he may want a motorbike. I am aware that motorbikes are dangerous and can cause death. I have two choices: to forbid him to have one (or at least to refuse to pay for it). Or to tell him all about the risks of motorbikes, to ensure that he takes all the necessary precautions and training, and let him ride one.
Suppose my son then has a fatal accident on his bike. Would I be to blame? I would almost certainly be inclined to blame myself, but would I be right?
Parents have to give their children freedom, whatever the risks. Is God's parenting any different?
Children may also think their parents have said one thing, when in fact they said something quite different. Children may, for various reasons, seriously misjudge their parents' character. Later they may realise their parents were not as they thought them. Ring any bells?

[ 14. July 2004, 21:34: Message edited by: Esmeralda ]
 
Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :
 
A general comment at this stage of the discussion. First, it seems to me, that those that can't see that there is any real problem with God ordering genocide, are extremely unlikely to be persuaded at this point of the argument, if they haven't seen the problem yet - I doubt they will perceive a problem in the near future, no matter how many brilliant posts point out why it is such a problem. (I've often wondered whether 'where there's a will there's a way' should start John's gospel as the truth contained in it transcends all human cultures. Or at least that is the way it seems to me. Religious belief may well be the most common contributor to delusional modes of thinking.)

However, I think there are some really interesting issues left to explore amongst those who would either 'go against the text' quite happily or those who in effect go against the text, but pretend they aren't.

I'm particularly interested in what Karl, Little Weed, Grey Face, Esmerelda, Wood (and a few others - you know who you are) think on the following issue.

If there is a problem with this passage in the text - and we accept that it is acceptable to 'go against the text' as it appears to be what Jesus did and it certainly seems to be part of a lot of Jewish thinking. Then we are left with the question of why this passage is there in the first place.

So far the suggestions haven't been convincing to me - eg it goes to show how important it was to God to preserve the Jewish people etc. This seemed to me to be deeply problematic once we bring a bit of joined up thinking to this issue.

Are there any other suggestions? Esmerelda's is going in the right direction but her answer is still problematic for me.


Luigi

[ 14. July 2004, 22:01: Message edited by: Luigi ]
 
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 
This thread is weird.

I largely agree with Martin. Lep is making a lot of sense even from my point of view, in roughly every second post [Razz]

At the risk of starting another Sharkshooter flaming thread, I'm prepared to answer the "What would you do if..." question Wood had a shot at earlier.

If I got to Heaven (priez pour moi) and found out that God had actually ordered this, I'd fully expect to be welcomed in by a bunch of Amalekite Holy Innocents, and have an angel pointing out that this happened for reason X, X typically being something along the lines of, the Incarnation couldn't have happened otherwise for ten billion years without violating freedom and defeating God's design, and the earth would have been blown to bits in 1923. Or something like that. What I don't expect is, an angel saying "Yeah, well, they were a bunch of bastards. Especially the babies. Good job you were better than them, eh?" or I'll frankly expect to end up in warmer climes.

Ye'll all note from that, that I'm not a Calvinist.

<Slinks off in disgrace>
 
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Esmeralda:
Is it? Let us posit a new and radical idea (!) - that God is like a parent. I am a parent. When my son is a teenager, he may want a motorbike. I am aware that motorbikes are dangerous and can cause death. I have two choices: to forbid him to have one (or at least to refuse to pay for it). Or to tell him all about the risks of motorbikes, to ensure that he takes all the necessary precautions and training, and let him ride one.
Suppose my son then has a fatal accident on his bike. Would I be to blame? I would almost certainly be inclined to blame myself, but would I be right?
Parents have to give their children freedom, whatever the risks. Is God's parenting any different?
Children may also think their parents have said one thing, when in fact they said something quite different. Children may, for various reasons, seriously misjudge their parents' character. Later they may realise their parents were not as they thought them. Ring any bells?
Well thanks for the parenting lesson. Are your children under 5, because that's certainly the tone you adopted for your post? I am not, FYI.

The thing is, if you KNEW your son would die of an accident on a motor bike, and it was as easy as clicking your fingers to stop it, you would wouldn't you? Dare I say it, you'd be a bad mother if you didn't.
Death is not "a risk" of life - it is a definite, nearly always painful and traumatic (not least for those left behind) experience. God at the least allows that, He even suggests that he pre-ordains it.
I do not have a problem with that. I see it as "God's job" to do it. Yet I believe it intrinsically immoral for another person to arrange the deaths of others. Or at the very least not stop it when they could.
I think we all do. And once that is conceded, it becomes much easier to stomach that God, on occasion, as chosen to take life away supernaturally for "his own good reason". Possibly the same "good reason" that's existence has been posited by Little Weed and Freddy for him letting death into the scheme in the first place.

Draw the distinction between "organising death" and "killing" if you will - but if you let your son ride on a motorbike that you knew would kill him, when you it would be easy as anything for you to stop him - well, the result's the same.

Like before, I'm just repeating myself now - I will try to withdraw from this thread until I have something new to say.
 
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:


If there is a problem with this passage in the text - and we accept that it is acceptable to 'go against the text' as it appears to be what Jesus did and it certainly seems to be part of a lot of Jewish thinking. Then we are left with the question of why this passage is there in the first place.

Sorry to break my own resolution so quickly, and I know you aren't interested in my view on this Luigi - but this for me is the nub of the issue. If you believe in Biblical inspiration, even in the loosest sense this passage must be FOR something. And the only suggestions so far have been to teach the opposite of what actually it appears to say - that sinful people commit genocide. Which is a strange hermeneutic by anyone's standards.
So I am genuinely interested in the answers to this question that appear - not so I can pick holes, but I want to know what you think you actually do with this passage if you doubt its' veracity.

Grey Face - I'd like to think making sense in every second post is a step in the right direction for me. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Er, Peppone, how could I possibly say, as an orthodox Christian, that if YHWH was love when He was Jesus that He wasn't love before and won't be after? When God killed, kills, will kill again, He was, is, will be Love. By definition.

What don't I get, Wood, old chip, old son? Even on this multithreaded thread? Is there some nuance that eludes me?

And Seeker963, I didn't think he did. He took my posit and ran very well it.

I don't see you seeing a straw man either.
Sorry, Martin, I don't even understand your English in your last two posts let alone the ideas you are trying to convey. [Confused]
 
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
If there is a problem with this passage in the text - and we accept that it is acceptable to 'go against the text' as it appears to be what Jesus did and it certainly seems to be part of a lot of Jewish thinking. Then we are left with the question of why this passage is there in the first place.
It's part of a wider historical narrative (and whether every detail actually happened in the 21st century sense of "true history" is beside the point). I don't really understand why it's difficult to understand. Why do we have the story about Lot's daugthers having sex with him? There is absolutely no sense in that story that there is any "moral" to it - good or bad. We certainly can't say that by not having a narrative of condemnation that God recommends sleeping with a parent or child in case of dire reproductive emergency; but clearly neither Lot nor his daughters are condemned in the narrative. In the "infallible instructive hermenutic of God's sovereign will", why is that story there?

[ 14. July 2004, 22:19: Message edited by: Seeker963 ]
 
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:

I'm particularly interested in what Karl, Little Weed, Grey Face, Esmerelda, Wood (and a few others - you know who you are) think on the following issue.

If there is a problem with this passage in the text - and we accept that it is acceptable to 'go against the text' as it appears to be what Jesus did and it certainly seems to be part of a lot of Jewish thinking. Then we are left with the question of why this passage is there in the first place.
I'm still sat on the fence as far as the nature of this passage goes but I'll have a shot at it.

Why is it there? I can think of several possible reasons other than the literalist/inerrantist one (sorry Lep, I think the cap fits on this one and I don't mean it in a derogatory sense).

1. Progressive revelation - has the time come now for this perception of God's actions to be challenged? Is it in the Bible for this very purpose - to be reinterpreted? I'm curious as to how people see the application of the passage that has the Spirit leading us into all truth, in the light of, for example, the abolition of slavery, or the ordination of women, or wearing hats in church etc. Changing views (and I'm aware that at least one is highly contentious) of the Bible can happen over a long period of time.

2. Metaphorical - it's, to be blunt, a kick up the arse to those on the fringes of the Church to make the jump, because Bad Things Happen to those outside (this isn't a character of God issue, I see it in much the same way as Jesus' warnings of hell, which is another topic)

3. It was there to make the Israelites/Jews act in a particular way in their later history as they read the Scriptures. It no longer has this effect (note how ready we are, as a whole, to condemn the idea that God would command genocide today, particularly those of the cons-evo persuasion, which is what makes this thread to a certain extent a bit silly, other than from the apologetics angle)

4. It's there because that was the view of the writer and it's wrong, much like the other apparent contradictions, and God intended us to realise that, allowing us to deduce the nature of Biblical authority - hence this discussion and many others like it.

Then there's 5. The Bible is as full of holes as a Swiss cheese, and not to be trusted on much at all. I leave it out on the grounds that I don't think we have any non-Christians left in the discussion.


Can I insert my usually disclaimer about being a baby theologian here? There are people on this thread who've studied and lived Christianity for longer than I've been alive and many times longer than I've been doing it, and many that are far cleverer than me too [Biased] , and don't anyone be stupid enough to think that's false modesty. I know when I'm outclassed.

My view on which is true is a combination of 0 to 4 that changes from minute to minute, so don't read much into what I wrote, please, but you did ask.
 
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Grey Face - I'd like to think making sense in every second post is a step in the right direction for me. [Big Grin]
If I ever manage to reach such lofty 'eights meself, I'll be an 'appy geeza.

Oh, bollocks. I'm even starting to sound like Martin.


[Snigger]
 
Posted by lapsed heathen (# 4403) on :
 
quote:
Then we are left with the question of why this passage is there in the first place.
Maby because it happened and the description of 'why' is the best the Isralites could do to square the circle of Lep.'s quanry..

Lep.;
quote:
And the only suggestions so far have been to teach the opposite of what actually it appears to say - that sinful people commit genocide.
Could it be not that it's the oposite of sinfull people comit genocide but exactly that sinfull people commit genocide. God may not have ordered the genocide but the Isralites who saw themselves as God's chosen could not live in good contience with genocide without invoking God as the author of the action.
The Bible is not a colection of indivdual little leasons. It's a colection whitch taken together make one leason. We are redeamed and can atain our orignal true purpose, to love and serve God.
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
It's all right Seeker963, I'm writing in tongues. It's syntactic but not necessarily semantic. Unlike some of yours [Smile] Those that have an ear, hear.
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
Grey Face you git. Talking bollocks am I?
 
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 
That's what's got me worried.

If you are, I'm suffering from a severe failure to miscomprehend you.
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
And JJ - God hates our suffering and makes us suffer. God hates killing and kills. Any way you cut it. God set Himself up to be killed. Killed Himself. No way out. He kills and before He does He inflicts acute and chronic suffering, pain on ALL. On virtually every living zoological thing. Including Himself. He GROANS with it all, the awful necessity. Any one disagree on that? PLEASE. Try, someone. As liberally rational as you like. The liberally and rationalistically the better.

So what big DEAL is it that He orders His theocratic people to kill? To be God-like?

Can some one tease that out for me?

Now a passively resistant, ahmisa, pacifist God ordering us to kill, that would be weird. And a killer God who ordered us to do as He said but not as He did, would be a tad inconsistent.

But a killer God can certainly command killing of those made in in His image.

No?

For a multiplicity of bitterly regretful necessities which, thank God, no longer apply - since He died. Altough He carried on killing and is yet to kill on the greatest scales ever.

And don't invoke a non-killer God who doesn't order us to kill. That is an EMPIRICAL impossibility. A sick joke. He doesn't exist. Thank God.

To save us - He'll kill us all. He does.
 
Posted by Sebastian (# 7494) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
quote:
Originally posted by Sebastian:
Those doubting God - I respectfully request - have you (please don't laugh this off) have you tried asking God for answers to these questions?
I'm not entirely certain who you are categorising as "doubters of God".

But have I tried asking him? Yep, you bet. Absolutely. In prayer for 25 years. Including prayers like "OK, God, what do I do with today's Psalms? Is it really OK for me to pray for you to crush my enemies or does the crushing of physical enemies only apply to the Psalmist? And why is it A Good Thing for anyone to pray that their enemies be destroyed?" Answers in prayer (which are admittedly always personal and subjective) were things like "Do you REALLY think that's what I'm about? You need to understand that I love ALL my creation. Even those who you cannot love."

I also believe that a good part of the answer God gave me was leading me to time-honoured theology that helped me see scripture differently and which stood squarely inside Christian tradition. I believe that part of the answer for me was God leading me to Methodism and Methodist theology (not that I'm saying that "Methodism is the only right theology"; I'm saying it was what I needed to trust in God again.)

Now - if I'm one of your "doubters of God" - what do you make of that? (Assuming the answer was "supposed" to be "No, it never occurred to any of us to ask God.") Either God leads different people in different ways (which I'm personally happy to accept) or God can bring us into relationship with him even if our theology isn't perfect (which I personally believe), or one of us is utterly wrong and doomed to eternal punishment (assuming I fall into your category of a "doubter of God").
Hello there,

You seemed rather fired up about my words...

Obviously you've asked God - as you said - so I believe you, me, and anyone who reads this can safely say that my original quote suggesting people ask God for an answer - well that obviously doesn't apply to you because - as you said...
You already have for at least 25 years.

I've known those who ask the kinds of questions that revolve around this thread and lots of them (not you Sir,) do indeed have yet to begin to ask God for an answer.

And my suggestion is for those (not you) who have yet to ask God for His assistance with an answer to pray for one.

I sure don't claim to have all the answers, but I've found it *does help* to ask God for an answer for things that puzzle me in scripture.

Respectfully Yours,
Sebastian

[ 15. July 2004, 05:50: Message edited by: Sebastian ]
 
Posted by Sebastian (# 7494) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Sebastian, you wrote:
quote:
We are created beings (those who don't believe this - there's other discussion forums for this specific topic) and even then, we're a bad copy of what we originally were (Thanks a lot Adam). So our ability to understand God has diminished since that time, and our own nature is corrupted.

If we humans can't begin to understand ourselves, what chance do we have to begin to fully understand God.

Let alone judge HIM - Judge God?! Our perceptions are so tragically limited.
Well, with you here, more or less, though I wouldn't lay all the blame on Adam, but no-one here, as far as I can see, has suggested that we should judge God.

As a matter of fact I do believe that we have an inherent knowledhge, however distorted, of what is right and what is wrong, at least as far as the big issues. I think I could make a pretty fair case for this to be biblical teaching. I believe that to arise out of what God considers to be right and wrong. I don't think it has anything to do with the enlightenment, liberal rationalism or anything else. It's how we are made. Of course, that's not to say it's irrational, of course it is deeply rational, but that's just a by product of the nature of creation.

Furthermore, God expects us to act upon that knowledge. Here again, I don't think that this is in dispute if you take the scriptures seriously. (They also teach we are likely to fail, but that's another point).

It's not a matter of what seems fair, it's a matter of whether or not right, wrong, good, evil, love, hate, have any objective meaning at all. For if God is, as I believe, and as Jesus demonstrates, the source of right, good, love, and the enemy of wrong, evil and hate, how could he instruct his children to do what he hates. Here again, I think I am on strong scriptural ground.

I apologise to Lep for hinting at the "i" word, and, believe me, it's not intended as a side-swipe, but to judge the scriptures in the light of the whole scriptures, including Jesus' incarnation, and to conclude that on some occasions, the scriptures attribute to God commands that he never made, is not to sit in judgement on God, but to do what He intends us to do, to engage with Him.
[Hot and Hormonal]
Perhaps you are right... Perhaps no one has decided here to judge God. I've just known a lot of folks in my past (in duscussions on this very topic) where it seemed natural to call God 'unfair'...

Perhaps I'm remembering my past conversations with other friends.

Yet the other portion where I mention - for those seeking answers (I didn't state it quite like that originally) - I recommended (even respectfully) that they consider asking God for answers.

one person replied later to my post - that they had not thought of that...

Thanks for the reply,

Sebastian
 
Posted by Sebastian (# 7494) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Sorry to double post.

With regard to the "rational Christianity" site, I have to say that I find it to be neither.
I should look at it again.

I originally looked at that site as one of the various sources while doing research on those who were former atheists and have since found faith in God through Christ.

Thanks,
Sebastian
 
Posted by Sebastian (# 7494) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Those doubting God - I respectfully request - have you (please don't laugh this off) have you tried asking God for answers to these questions?
[Killing me] [Help] [Killing me]

[Mode=Irony]My God, I never thought of that![/Mode]
I have to say, I thought of that sort of response too, [brick wall] but I went for the serious one.
Dear Sir,
So are you saying that one should not ask God for answers? I seem to doubt that - you sure got fired up over my suggestion for this...

From the nature of your reply (how you described your time in scriputre), I believe there are those who could learn some very good things about studying scripture or "having devotions" (for lack of a better term here) from you.

I find it seemingly unchararacteristic that you'd disapprove the suggestion to others (see previous reply) to ask God for answers.

Not everyone in this world has actually asked God for assistance for answers in scripture.

Why would it be so ridiculous to suggest to those (not you, because you already have for years - as you said) to ask God for answers for things that puzzle them in scripture?

Respectfully yours,
Sebastian
p.s. Notice, I haven't retorted nor replied in a hostile way. If this seems to come off in an ill manner, that certainly is not my intent.

[ 15. July 2004, 06:13: Message edited by: Sebastian ]
 
Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :
 
Lep - it is not that I am not interested in what you have to say it is just that in my experience those who have as their very foundation stone the view that what the Bible affirms must be true; or to put it another way those that come at the text from a totalising point of view...... rarely, if ever in my experience, change their mind in a discussion. Therefore the discussion just becomes very repetitive. I think the problem is there for all to see - how on earth can we follow a God who demands gecnoide? And the secondary question would be - how can we follow a God who is so inconsistent and arbitrary?

You think it is a circle that can or should be squared. Sometime ago, I decided that in my faith I no longer wanted to try to square circles. If the Christian answer didn't add up.... then I should ditch it.

The above may need more nuancing so that it fits you more accurately but I don't have enough time. So I'll leave it there.

It is just that for me many discussions on Christian forums end up being a game of tennis between those furthest removed from each other, which means some really interesting stuff never comes out.

Luigi
PS left Seeker963 off that list but they should be there as well.
 
Posted by Little Weed (# 4402) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
If there is a problem with this passage in the text - and we accept that it is acceptable to 'go against the text' as it appears to be what Jesus did and it certainly seems to be part of a lot of Jewish thinking. Then we are left with the question of why this passage is there in the first place.
This is all very pragmatic and non-learned I’m afraid, and I am deliberately avoiding the question of divine inspiration. The points are in no particular order of importance.

Why include it in the Jewish Bible?

1. It was Jewish history, recording an important part of the story. From the beginning God is woven into the structure of Jewish life and politics. It’s a practical rather than mystical religion for the vast majority.

2. Joshua, read straight, has nationalistic value. Israel was constantly being lax and rebellious against the political-religious leadership of the time (there being no difference between politics and religion). It was a good message on both counts: if you obey God you will win battles; if you don’t, he will give you over to captivity.

3. We revere the works of earlier times, especially military heroes. Things get hallowed with time and reputations enhanced.

4. I don’t know when it was written. Was it handed down first orally then written down? From internal evidence within Joshua and Judges there are conflicts with the timing and battles won and lost during Joshua's lifetime. There seem to me clearly two different voices and no attempt to reconcile the texts.

5. People were theologising as they wrote it. It wasn’t seen as invention to put words of God into eg Joshua’s mouth. There’s a way of thinking in the Middle East (see Saddam Hussein’s Information Minister) that says if it ought to happen/have happened it must happen/have happened. It isn’t lying through your teeth or spin in the western sense; it’s telling the truth even though it conflicts with reality.

6. I have great respect for the thinking ability of the ancients. Take the two apparently factually conflicting descriptions of Creation in Genesis. As I understand it, it is quite natural to find that if there are two traditions then both will be faithfully reproduced. It’s not that they didn’t see the contradictions that we do but that the contradictions weren’t particularly important. The stories were tradition so there were included in the written version.

7. People – in this circumstance people of the male sort – had a tendency to violence and didn’t see it as a bad thing. If you were desperate to survive, why not? But it remains the fact that it’s all written by men and men like their war toys. Is God a man after all?

8. How Judaism interprets it today. As I’ve cited before, some people (even some orthodox scholars) simply say Joshua and others who heard similar instructions were mistaken. As I understand it from my limited research the other, more traditional approach to God ordering slaughter is to say that Amalek stands for the perpetual enemy. We must look to the Amalek within us to root out evil but also we must root out the Amaleks, interpreted as Anti-Semites, everywhere, of any nationality (because there aren’t any traceable Amalek decendants today), in whatever country they live and defeat them, some would say with violence if necessary. (See material on ‘Purim’ from various websites on Judaism.)

How does it become part of the Christian Bible?

I don’t know enough about the history and whether the Torah was accepted wholesale by the Church Fathers. For many of the above reasons, however, it would have been still part of our history. With St Paul we had already seen the beginnings of a distancing from the Jewish roots of the new Christianity which then goes whooshing off at a tangent so fast that I suspect that very many Christians today don’t even actively think of Jesus as a Jew. Even the actions of Jesus himself (with regard to the sacredness of the Sabbath for example) made him a Very Bad Jew according to some of my orthodox Jewish friends.

So I think we are stuck with something that no longer feels like part of our history. Not only have our worldviews and attitudes to violence and the equal value of all races and individuals changed but we’ve concentrated particularly on the non-Jewish, universal aspects of Jesus until very recently. We have, however, maintained the idea also until very recently that God is always on the side of right in battle, therefore always on our side - “Cry 'God for Harry! England and Saint George!'”, Shakespeare’s Henry V - so the OT war heroes get used as role models from time to time when useful. I tend to think of them rather like the great uncle who to everyone else’s embarrassment will keep going on about the Hun and the Japs.

As an aside, I don’t know whether to laugh or cry at Judges 3, 12 - 30, the passage on Ehud. "I have a word of God for you." Well that’s nice, I must say.

Apologies for the length. You may be glad to know that's probably the last of me for today and possibly on this thread as I have rooms to sweep for the Lord.
 
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sebastian:
Dear Sir,
So are you saying that one should not ask God for answers? I seem to doubt that - you sure got fired up over my suggestion for this...I find it seemingly unchararacteristic that you'd disapprove the suggestion to others (see previous reply) to ask God for answers...
p.s. Notice, I haven't retorted nor replied in a hostile way. If this seems to come off in an ill manner, that certainly is not my intent.
I'm sorry if you felt I was hostile and I apologise. I was reacting to what appeared to be a supposition that people who believe in free will must not have consulted God on the matter. I apologise for the supposition.

And I'm not a "sir". (I was going to say "I'm a madam", but that doesn't sound quite right!. [Hot and Hormonal] )
 
Posted by Sebastian (# 7494) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
quote:
Originally posted by Sebastian:
Dear Sir,
So are you saying that one should not ask God for answers? I seem to doubt that - you sure got fired up over my suggestion for this...I find it seemingly unchararacteristic that you'd disapprove the suggestion to others (see previous reply) to ask God for answers...
p.s. Notice, I haven't retorted nor replied in a hostile way. If this seems to come off in an ill manner, that certainly is not my intent.
I'm sorry if you felt I was hostile and I apologise. I was reacting to what appeared to be a supposition that people who believe in free will must not have consulted God on the matter. I apologise for the supposition.

And I'm not a "sir". (I was going to say "I'm a madam", but that doesn't sound quite right!. [Hot and Hormonal] )
I believe in free will - I see now how my post could have been deemed otherwise...
I just also believe there are many who have yet to ask God for assistance in understanding difficult passages of scripture.

Wood made a good poing - God's answers certainly are not 'straight'... well, that's probably one reason why God is who he is... He (God) seems to weave an answer (at least in my life) over years until he springs it on me... when I don't expect it and realize he's been weaving it for a long time.

I'm probably (more like 'certainly') too daft to catch all of God's answers he attempts to pummel me with.
I keep asking Him for answers though (and searching/digging in scripture).

Sebastian
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
Sebastian - your post got the response it did for several reasons:

1) it was a painfully naive suggestion at this stage in a long thread;

2) it was terribly presumptious of you to imagine that the earnest contributors to this thread who have problems with this had not already done so;

3) it was typical of the sort of pat, trite (and worthless) suggestions many of us have had from some sectors of evangelicalism which have nearly driven some of us from the faith;

4) it was, if one could get over the irritation factor, immensely funny in a sort of "Hmm - you say you've suffered from headaches for years - have you tried aspirin?" way.
 
Posted by Sebastian (# 7494) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Sebastian - your post got the response it did for several reasons:

1) it was a painfully naive suggestion at this stage in a long thread;

2) it was terribly presumptious of you to imagine that the earnest contributors to this thread who have problems with this had not already done so;

3) it was typical of the sort of pat, trite (and worthless) suggestions many of us have had from some sectors of evangelicalism which have nearly driven some of us from the faith;

4) it was, if one could get over the irritation factor, immensely funny in a sort of "Hmm - you say you've suffered from headaches for years - have you tried aspirin?" way.
Karl,

I easily see your point, but I respectfully say I believe you missed mine entirely.

If it seemed presumptious to you (or others) that anyone had neglected prayer - I apologise. However, even the Apostle Peter said he didn't tell people what they didn't know, but reminded them of what they did.

2 Peter 1:12
So I will always remind you of these things, even though you know them and are firmly established in the truth you now have.

I was actually (and honestly) considering a volume of other possible readers, those that would read your posts - those who have already written the majority of the text in this thread who might never post and who have not studied and who have not prayed.

Sure, I didn't go at a post in the same "theme" as the majority of others. I like to look at other angles - especially the angles that are neglected.

About anyone could read those posts - and there are some who have yet to consider the prospect of praying for guidance.

When I'm troubleshooting difficult network or computer problems, sometimes my colleagues might ask me if I've performed some check that might be simple - and visa-versa. Simetimes that helps.

What crime is it to recommend prayer - especially to those I don't know.

I see now that many could easily take offense at that - again (and for the 2nd time) I apologise for that - but I do say that it is not wrong to suggest prayer, and your fellows are not he only ones reading the posts you generate.

There are others reading your posts and those folks may not have considered posting their questions to God in prayer.

It may have come across as "take two asprin" - but when it comes to matters of faith, sometimes we humans over-work things and forget the principle of scripture that says

Psalm 46:10
"Be still, and know that I am God; I will be exalted among the nations, I will be exalted in the earth."

I talk to various people in the Church of Fools.

I've lately met several people (atheists and agnostics) in the "Church of Fools) who are considering faith and have questions on scripture. I asked a few of them who were open to the idea of seeking God if they'd ever asked God their questions.

They said "no they had not done so". One person who genuinely seemed open to exploring faith - when I asked if they'd consider asking God about their questions - they said they'd never done that but would begin to do so.

I wouldn't consider it "pat" or "trite" to suggest prayer. Even the New Testament speaks of scripture being spiritually discerned (1 Cor 2:14).

I've met some in the "Church of Fools" and they had actually never thought of doing this - and they were not diminishing the idea of praying to God.

I'm not saying that one should merely just pray about things such as these and abandon serious study and analysis of scripture.

I spent 7.5 years with a ministry that had very indepth analysis of scripture and it changed my life greatly.

I've also learned that it does help to ask God for guidance when studing scripture, especially difficult passages that weigh his nature.

If this comes across negatively, it is not my intent.

Respectfully yours,
Sebastian
 
Posted by Sebastian (# 7494) on :
 
I've thought some more on this and I believe I owe this entire group an apology.

While my intentions and points - I believe - were correct, I neglected fully considering the dynamics of those participating primarily within this post and have certainly walked into something I was not a part of.

My offense to so many I recognize likely came as a result of my not following:

Proverbs 25:11
A word aptly spoken is like apples of gold in settings of silver.

I believe my words had a valid point to be made (to an undetermined wide audience that may never post here and may be searching for faith),
but I didn't deliver my words in a manner that was best to the participants of this group.

I had a concern for other readers of these posts, and that was a driving motivation for my original post. Although - heh - not very well communicated.

I shall now do what I should have to begin with (diminish and) observe and be wiser in my posts (note my quote at below my 'signature').

To any/all I've offended,
Apologies,

Observing in the fringes,
Sebastian

[ 15. July 2004, 10:10: Message edited by: Sebastian ]
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
Sebastion,

I, for one, thought it was a good question, and wasn't at all offended by it.

I assumed that your point was not that we wouldn't struggle with this question if we would just turn to God, but that asking God questions, and receiving answers, is not an easy thing to do.

Supposing we all did ask God and then came back here with the answers. What if they weren't the same answers? Certainly none of us is qualified to speak for God.

I think we all know that conversations with God just don't work that way, at least in this day and age.

In our internal conversations with our Creator there are many answers and questions, and none are so clear that we would presume to say, "I asked God and He says..." The best we can usually say is "I asked God and He helped me."
 
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sebastian:
I believe in free will - I see now how my post could have been deemed otherwise...
I just also believe there are many who have yet to ask God for assistance in understanding difficult passages of scripture.
It's surprisingly easy to forget to ask God for assistance with a whole range of things. I know I forget often and I sometimes get caught up trying to do things in my own strength having completely forgotten to pray about the matter. I catch myself doing this embarrassingly frequently.

I think the suggestion to pray is sort of addressing a different level than this conversation has been on, which is perhaps why it seemed to jar.

I don't quite know how to express the idea, but for me there is a difference between faith and theology, although they both inform and feed each other. For me personally in my walk with God, theology is always provisional. I don't believe I'll ever know the full truth in this life. It's just trying to express a synthesis about "scripture, tradition, reason and experience". Faith, on the other hand, ultimately has a "little child" aspect to it. At the risk of sounding too Muslim, at the faith level, all I can ever really do is submit and obey.

In the terms I expressed above (which I suspect some will not agree with), you were talking at the "faith" level when the rest of the conversation had been at the "theology" level. Hope this makes sense.

[ 15. July 2004, 13:10: Message edited by: Seeker963 ]
 
Posted by linzc (# 2914) on :
 
In the midst of the hurley burley of this fascinating thread, I think that being a simple man I will just concentrate on the interesting 'literary theory flavoured' conversation with Wood...

quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
quote:
Originally posted by linzc
The text is only problematic if you feel an obligation to affirm the idea within the text that God desires (these particular) genocides.
No, it's problematic because God affirms genocides within the text.
Ok, let's take it another iteration. Would you say that the fact that God affirms genocide within the text is problematic because you feel an obligation to affirm the view of God represented by the text? If so, does this obligation apply uniformly to all aspects of Scripture? That would be what I refer to as a 'flat' reading of Scripture (and I certainly understand that you are not thereby arguing for an inerrantist position).

quote:
Then you said...
quote:
Originally posted by linzc
But surely the narrative is only a sticking point because of the particular authority you give it and (IMO) the specific way you see that authority operating. If Fred Axemurderer says "God told me to do it", that doesn't cause you any moral dilemna, does it? You simply chalk this up to an error on Fred's behalf which doesn't affect your view of God. In the case in point, the writers of the Biblical narrative say, "God told us to do it". Why can't you simply chalk it up as their error?
Because it doesn't work like that. We're not looking at some isolated nut here, we're looking at a culture-defining, history-defining text. we're looking at the narrative of a people which until fairly recently was given by most people in the West some sort of authority.
However, surely the particularly exclusive nationalistic interpretation of Israel's election held at the time of Christ was similarly culture-defining and history-defining, arguably more so. Yet we note that the New Testament overturns this national theology quite comprehesively. So the fact that a belief has had even a central role in forming the character of Israel as a nation does not, in and of itself, require an affirmation of that belief.

As to authority, I think that it is in the understanding of how such authority operates that we most likely part company. For myself, the authority of Scripture comes from the fact that it is part of the pathway to encounter with Christ. So I would quite happily see passages like the 'genocide' ones as accurate recordings of one aspect of Israel's struggle to understand God and his character, and thus as important (though limited) steps to the understanding of God which we find expressed in its fullness in Christ.

Indeed in the passages in question we see Israel recognising the call of God to be set apart (and they were right about this); the importance of maintaining the core of their faith without adulteration (and they were right about this); and the need to trust the promises of God for the future and security of their nature (and they were right about this). But I think that they got it wrong when they felt that the way God desired for them to live out these values was the obliteration of the Canaanites. They have grasped something of God and his character - but they're not there yet. And that's ok. (I mean it's ok in the sense that it causes no cognitive dissonance for me, not in the sense that their actions were appropriate.)
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by linzc:
So the fact that a belief has had even a central role in forming the character of Israel as a nation does not, in and of itself, require an affirmation of that belief.
Excellent point.

Seeing Jehovah as the volent enemy of Israel's foes is not a belief that requires affirming. A Christian can reject that belief and still affirm the holiness and truth of the biblical narrative. Christ affirmed the positive aspects of the historical message, while rejecting its negative ones.

While we're dwelling on the problematic idea of God as one who commands genocide, let's not forget other aspects of the Old Testament idea of God that are similarly inconsistent with modern Christian ideas.

For example: You could go on endlessly with a list like this.

The idea of God that is presented in these places is a primitive one - a giant king of the world who plays favorites, makes up rules, and punishes all who oppose him.

Still, it is an image of God that contained basic truths, and that could be refined over time. And it was refined over time.

Here is the principle:
quote:
Jehovah God or the Lord never curses anyone, is never angry with anyone, never leads anyone into temptation, and never punishes. It is the devil's crew who do such things. Such things cannot possibly come from the fountain of mercy, peace, and goodness. The reason why in many places in the Word it is said that Jehovah God not only turns His face away, is angry, punishes, and tempts, but also slays and even curses, is that people may believe that the Lord rules over and disposes every single thing in the whole world, including evil itself, punishments, and temptations. And after people have grasped this very general concept, they may then learn in what ways He rules and disposes, and how He converts into good the evil inherent in punishment and the evil inherent in temptation. In teaching and learning the Word very general concepts have to come first; and therefore the Word is full of such general concepts.
To me this explains it why it is OK that genocide is attributed to God in some stories, even though it is impossible that God could have committed genocide. The main idea is that God is God and therefore omnipotent. Exactly how He is omnipotent is a much more subtle and modern idea.
 
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:

[*]God could not possibly have "walked in the garden in the cool of the day." Genesis 3.8
[*]God could not possibly have argued with Abraham over the fate of Sodom. Genesis 18.23
[*]Why would God have blessed Jacob right after he had deceived his father and stolen his brother's birthright and blessing? Genesis 28
[*]How could Jacob have wrestled with God and prevailed? Genesis 32.22-30
[*]The Lord couldn't really have tried to kill Moses on his way to Egypt. Exodus 4.24
[*]The conversation between Moses and God related in Exodus 32.9-14 is impossible. Moses persuaded God not to destroy Israel by pointing out that it would make Him look bad.
[*]Many of the laws given by God in Exodus and Leviticus are simply ludicrous. They couldn't possibly literally be from God.
[/list]
You could go on endlessly with a list like this.

Oh I'm so glad now that I've had it pointed out to me that these things are patently ridiculous, that I didn't spend 7 or 8 pages discussing them in Dead Horses.

Oh - wait a minute. I did. I just must be rubbish at seeing what is actually patently clear.

[Mad]
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
Sorry Lep. [Hot and Hormonal] I thought that the modern perspective on those things was pretty obvious.

So you think that Moses actually persuaded the God of the universe not to destroy Israel?

I'm actually fine with that belief. It just seems like a pretty ancient perspective.

[ 15. July 2004, 14:18: Message edited by: Freddy ]
 
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:

I'm actually fine with that belief. It just seems like a pretty ancient perspective.
Sorry. Handle. Flew off. Excuse me. [Hot and Hormonal]

"Persuaded" I'm not altogether happy with - I think God involved Moses in the decision in such a way as to show that his name's reputation matters to him.
If you want to discuss that one further I happily will in Keryg.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
If you want to discuss that one further I happily will in Keryg.
OK. Good idea.

My point, though, is just that genocide isn't the only problematic depiction of God that is found in the Bible.
 
Posted by Esmeralda (# 582) on :
 
This many posts, and I've been away less than 24 hours! Forgive me for answering an earlier one:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Well thanks for the parenting lesson. Are your children under 5, because that's certainly the tone you adopted for your post? I am not, FYI.
No need to get your knickers in a twist, Lep. My son is 9 but because of his giftedness and his learning disability has an intellectual age of about 15 and an emotional age of about 5. This, as you understand, can be confusing. I did not intend to talk down to anyone.

quote:
The thing is, if you KNEW your son would die of an accident on a motor bike, and it was as easy as clicking your fingers to stop it, you would wouldn't you? Dare I say it, you'd be a bad mother if you didn't.
Death is not "a risk" of life - it is a definite, nearly always painful and traumatic (not least for those left behind) experience. God at the least allows that, He even suggests that he pre-ordains it.
This leads us into the territory of God's foreknowledge and predestination, which is a whole new discussion. First of all, common sense tells us that foreknowledge is not necessarily predestination. I may 'know' that my friend will choose the chocolate digestive and not the Hob Nob, because I know she likes chocolate digestives better. But I did not 'make' her choose it - even by providing it among the choices.
Second, the 'openness of God' theology suggests that God does not necessarily choose to know everything beforehand, let alone predestine it. This does give us a problem with other Bible passages (eg parts of Ephesians), but on the other hand it gives us a much less puppet and puppet-master relationship between us and God.
Perhaps God does privilege human freedom over human life. That, after all, accords well with the sort of relationships Jesus (and Paul) explicitly asks us to use as models of our relationship with God: the parent/child relationship and the spousal relationship. I hope I will give both my child and my partner freedom in preference to making them obey my every command for their safety. Obviously the child will have less freedom, but when he is grown up, he should have as much as my husband does.
Am I privileging metaphor over proposition here? Good. Jesus did.
 
Posted by hermit (# 1803) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Peppone:
quote:
Originally posted by hermit:
Yes, now you've got it! God's will is the absolute reference point by which we can measure good and evil.
Then the only difference between God and Satan is that God is more powerful. In this universe, power lies at the root of all; in God's universe, love, life, and creativity underlie all.

Read your Screwtape.
God IS more powerful than Satan, but we also have faith that He is "absolutely" compassionate and loving. Fortunately for us! It's just that it can take a while for things to work out properly, and that His idea of good isn't exactly the same as ours is in this particular culture and time. You're seeing one of the biblical killings as a "bad" thing, just as I used to consider my parent's punishments "bad" .... it is in the sense that those people defied God and had to be made an example of (if the event actually happened), but perhaps we can also think of generations of Christians, Muslims and Jews who learned the lesson of obedience and the holiness of God (in the sense of preparing the way for His incarnation, for Christians).

So I take it you think human speculative philosophies are the best indication of what's right and wrong, Peppone? Which philosopher has got a better handle on killing and genocide than God?
quote:
You got it folks. The holocaust, the Rwandan massacres -
Karl, please refrain from commenting on my posts, as you've asked me to refrain from commenting on yours. For whatever reason your personal insults to me have been tolerated here - might I assume because the moderators share your political slant? But I'm simply in no mood, when there are people here who can play nicely by the rules, and are more thoughtful in their reasoning.
quote:
Is this the Gospel? Is this what Jesus taught us? Were his calls to repent actually saying, "Rise up, grab your swords and wipe out this evil Roman Empire, and when you're finished, get started on the rest of the unholy Gentiles!"? They certainly don't read that way to me.
He said something infinitely more violent, that many of us might end up in a place of eternal punishment. And he also told them to buy swords, then forbade their use when he was apprehended. The idea seems to be that there's always the possibility of violence and death, even eternal death, but it's a lot better if we can work things out peacefully.
quote:
Anyway - my whole point here (and really, I do have one) is that for all who may doubt God's goodness, kindness, etc - in light of the severe judgements executed against entire nations depicted in the Old Testament -
.. heh - perhaps we ought to ask God for enlightment.

Perhaps the only way to understand such accounts, events, Old Testament accounts is to ask God himself. It boils down to if I'm ready to judge God myself - to condemn his nature or if I'm open to another alternative ....

... And when I say faith, I'm talking about a time-developed relationship with God (and that's another topic entirely, and I'm sure someone can and quite likely will easily twist my last paragraph here into something I never intended it to be).

Good point, but you're likely to get scorned just as you thought, by those who prefer debate and secular philosophy. I guess if Jesus came for a main reason in addition to atonement on the cross, it was to establish a closer relationship between God and man than was previously available - adopted sons rather than servants.

Well, I see another two pages of reading up ahead, not keeping up very well am I? Maybe I'll come back later, maybe not, hope I haven't missed anyone's direct question to me.
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
For 'modern', read jejeune, sophomoric.

As I was tootling to MK from Leamers today I thought of the dear old Charles Simonyi Professor for the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford, Richard Dawkins. He speaks of savages who engage in religion a la Bertrand Russell - they try and communicate with the weather. They believe that water flows down hill because of hammadryads. Water spirits. You give them an Oxford education in physics, completely explaining hydrodynamics, hydraulics, wave theory, gravitation, the lot. They all get firsts.

You then ask them what makes water flow down hill. They all answer 'Hammadryads.'. You say, 'But what about hydrodynamics?' and they say 'Yeah, that's how the hammadryads do it.'.

This is a critique perfectly applicable to liberal rationalism. Denying the ineffable, inexplicable, contingent, necessary dreadfulness of Love.
 
Posted by Esmeralda (# 582) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:

Now a passively resistant, ahmisa, pacifist God ordering us to kill, that would be weird. And a killer God who ordered us to do as He said but not as He did, would be a tad inconsistent.

But a killer God can certainly command killing of those made in in His image.

No?

For a multiplicity of bitterly regretful necessities which, thank God, no longer apply - since He died. Altough He carried on killing and is yet to kill on the greatest scales ever.

And don't invoke a non-killer God who doesn't order us to kill. That is an EMPIRICAL impossibility. A sick joke. He doesn't exist. Thank God.

To save us - He'll kill us all. He does.
[catching up again] This is where I can only think we are worshipping different Gods. I do not recognise at all in your description, the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who chose to die at the hands of human beings rather than to kill. I do not recognise the God who 'was pleased to reconcile to himself all things [my italics].. by making peace through the blood of his cross' (Col 1.20). I do not recognise the God who 'is patient with you, not wanting any to perish (2 Peter 3.9).
I can in no way love or worship this 'killer God' and if I thought God was really like this, I would (with immense regret and sadness) abandon any faith in this God.
And another pertinent question: what kind of people does it make us into, believing in this God? Thank you, Seeker, for adding 'experience' to the triad of 'Scripture, reason and tradition'; I have always wanted to do this, and in my experience the people I've known intimately who believe in the 'non-violent, pacifist God' at whom you are so willing to sneer, are generally much more Christlike, in my experience, than the people I've known who believed in a 'killer God'. I am far from being like them yet, but I aspire to be; I do not wish in the least to be like the worshippers of a God who can just about tolerate a small sector of humanity because they have assented to the right formula, but can't stand the rest of us. I hate this parody of God and I hope the real God does too.
So - feel free to send me to Hell, both the board and the real one. I prefer it to Heaven with the sort of God you're positing. And if that's the only God envisaged by the book of Joshua, then screw the book of Joshua. Which I'd rather not do, but if it's a choice between the God of Jesus and one book of the Bible, I know which I'd choose.
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
You're going to die Esmerelda.

God has given you a death sentence.

Why?

All you've ever known and loved will die.

He ordained it. He DID it. He's a KILLER. By omission or commission.

Whether He ordered Joshua to kill or not, He is going to kill you. Since the Big Bang or Eden. It's the same.

And save you.

I believe in all the God you do. And the God you don't. I just don't choose which parts of His revelation about Himself I submit to. I can't. I daren't. It would be intellectually dishonest and inadequate. And I count myself fortunate and blessed among men in so doing.

He is a very strange, terrifying, holy, lethal, righteous, perfect, ineffable, good, loving entity. The MOST ...

As history and creation show. Up to the good and loving that is [Smile]

He isn't like us. We're a bit like Him.

What kind person am I as the result of believing that?

Like you, not good enough. Not half-way good enough.

But I am an encouraged one, a hopeful one, an enlightened one, a real one. One my family all love despite what I've put them through. By the grace of God.

I'm a Neanderthal touched by grace like some other fundies here.

More Lord.

I'm starting to get concerned that I'm frightening people. I hope not. Not because of what I represent - nasty homophobic Calvinist graceless, double damning fundies - I'm ONLY nasty.

But because what if I'm right? You've already said it Esmerelda. You can't worship the God of 80% of the Bible.

Well you do actually - if you fear Him. Fear He could be so. He needs a whole new dialectic.

I'm feeling uncomfortable - a move of the Spirit? Subconscious embarrassment (at probably mispelling that ? [Smile] ) ? Open and vulnerable and sincere in this.

And you? Are you open, in the bowels of Christ, to consider that you might be mistaken AND right? Mistaken in what you omit - not in what you positively proclaim in your experience of Christ?

Deep, believe me, personal regards, Martin
 
Posted by Peppone (# 3855) on :
 
Good post Martin. Just when I was starting to think you only subscribed to the "killer...killing...killing...killing..." religion of endless, eternal bloodshed...you put it back into perspective for me. I agree with you, actually. The only way forward with Joshua is to say to God, OK, if that's you, then help me fit, or see it.

Strangely, when I try to do this sincerely, I don't get scared. Maybe that's what you're talking about. Sometimes you're hard to follow.

Tangent: reading through this thread, I suddenly flashed on what Kallisotos Ware meant when he said Orthodox Christians don't perceive any real difference between all the various strands of Western Protestantism and Western Roman Catholicism. It was like, suddenly, I was looking at the whole Western tradition through the wrong end of a telescope. ProtFundyism (even your version, Martin), "Liberal" Protestantism, RCism, whatever. They are all basically the same- and they feel incomplete. Possibly this is a fleeting insight, and I won't be able to grasp it again tomorrow. End tangent.
 
Posted by Tuggboat (# 7001) on :
 
Of course it might all be not true and just a metaphor for the extinction of Cro magnon man.

I actually believe genocide will look like a warm-up when he gets to species cide (sic)and wipes us all off the face of this Earth.
The more I believe this OT happened no matter what you call it, the more I know how much I have been saved from. Its way too easy for me to minimize the salvation I have because I don't know what he saved me from. Its why we should share Christ, so this fate doesn't fall on others also. The unrightous and haters of God will ALL perish and All their earthly possesions will be destroyed Just like the Amalekites. the Amalekites were a small scale representation of what is to come.

Though we don't want to face judgemnet as individuals, even scarier is the idea that he might judge whole nations. We think by pleading it is an injustice that he will spare us also.

Deut 7:9-10
9 Know therefore that the LORD your God is God; he is the faithful God, keeping his covenant of love to a thousand generations of those who love him and keep his commands. 10 But those who hate him he will repay to their face by destruction; he will not be slow to repay to their face those who hate him.
(from New International Version)

For us that are spared,
He'll probably say something like this to us when he sets us loose for that thousand year thing.
Deut 9:4-6

4 After the LORD your God has driven them out before you, do not say to yourself, "The LORD has brought me here to take possession of this land because of my righteousness." No, it is on account of the wickedness of these nations that the LORD is going to drive them out before you. 5 It is not because of your righteousness or your integrity that you are going in to take possession of their land; but on account of the wickedness of these nations, the LORD your God will drive them out before you, to accomplish what he swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. 6 Understand, then, that it is not because of your righteousness that the LORD your God is giving you this good land to possess, for you are a stiff-necked people.
(from New International Version)

[ 16. July 2004, 05:06: Message edited by: Tuggboat ]
 
Posted by Sebastian (# 7494) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by hermit:
quote:
Originally posted by Peppone:
[qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by hermit:

[QUOTE] Anyway - my whole point here (and really, I do have one) is that for all who may doubt God's goodness, kindness, etc - in light of the severe judgements executed against entire nations depicted in the Old Testament -
.. heh - perhaps we ought to ask God for enlightment.

Perhaps the only way to understand such accounts, events, Old Testament accounts is to ask God himself. It boils down to if I'm ready to judge God myself - to condemn his nature or if I'm open to another alternative ....

... And when I say faith, I'm talking about a time-developed relationship with God (and that's another topic entirely, and I'm sure someone can and quite likely will easily twist my last paragraph here into something I never intended it to be).

Good point, but you're likely to get scorned just as you thought, by those who prefer debate and secular philosophy. I guess if Jesus came for a main reason in addition to atonement on the cross, it was to establish a closer relationship between God and man than was previously available - adopted sons rather than servants.

Well, I see another two pages of reading up ahead, not keeping up very well am I? Maybe I'll come back later, maybe not, hope I haven't missed anyone's direct question to me.
Thanks Hermit - You've made some good points in your reply to me - and in your comments regarding another gentlemen
- I'm listening

Sebastian
 
Posted by Sebastian (# 7494) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Sebastion,

I, for one, thought it was a good question, and wasn't at all offended by it.

I assumed that your point was not that we wouldn't struggle with this question if we would just turn to God, but that asking God questions, and receiving answers, is not an easy thing to do.

Supposing we all did ask God and then came back here with the answers. What if they weren't the same answers? Certainly none of us is qualified to speak for God.

I think we all know that conversations with God just don't work that way, at least in this day and age.

In our internal conversations with our Creator there are many answers and questions, and none are so clear that we would presume to say, "I asked God and He says..." The best we can usually say is "I asked God and He helped me."
I agree 99.9% with your rendition of my comments - yes that is what I intended... -

Got to go - and sleep for a change - I need some rest,

Sebastian
 
Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :
 
Thanks to those who responded to my post / question. I'll try to respond to all of you when I have time - including Lep!

Moving on.... this is interesting. I realise that dialogue between myself and Martin, Hermit, Tuggboat, and Lep is difficult as we are in such different places - when Martin uses terms like loving and good he so clearly means something very different to what they mean to me.

However, those that are not inerrantists, of prehaps more accurately, immersed in an evangelical 'received text' understanding of the text, seem to have little agreement on what the text means, or whether the text means anything at all.

So Seeker963, I think we are pretty close on a lot of issues but I think - I could be wrong - that the answers that satisfy you don't really work for me. This is also true of Linxc and Esmerelda.

Perhaps I'm a little odd - I know the split personality response where I pretend to myself that all of this can be harmonised by mere assertion doesn't hold water, but, having moved from that evangelical understanding, I still don't think that most of the suggested answers work. Indeed, I think there is a danger of not taking the text seriously enough.

You see I would happily agree that the Bible should not be approached as a series of propositional truths and the response that 'they were just wrong' may be right but it doesn't have enough back up.

And this is where I depart from the more typical liberal responses. I am much more sympathetic to them than the mainstream evangelical responses, but they are still lacking.

It seems to me that Jesus, whilst he was quite willing to go against the text, did take the text seriously... very seriously. He also seemed to become quite exasperated that those around him, particularly the Jewish teachers, hadn't seen what he appeared to believe was quite easy to see. It is as if there is something hidden in the text, and if there is, I want to find it.

What is that which has been hidden since the foundation of the world - to paraphrase Jesus?
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
If there is a problem with this passage in the text - and we accept that it is acceptable to 'go against the text' as it appears to be what Jesus did and it certainly seems to be part of a lot of Jewish thinking. Then we are left with the question of why this passage is there in the first place.
It's part of a wider historical narrative (and whether every detail actually happened in the 21st century sense of "true history" is beside the point). I don't really understand why it's difficult to understand. Why do we have the story about Lot's daugthers having sex with him? There is absolutely no sense in that story that there is any "moral" to it - good or bad. We certainly can't say that by not having a narrative of condemnation that God recommends sleeping with a parent or child in case of dire reproductive emergency; but clearly neither Lot nor his daughters are condemned in the narrative. In the "infallible instructive hermenutic of God's sovereign will", why is that story there?
I think you should attempt an answer to that question first - I have spent a great deal of time studying parts of the OT - nowhere near enough of it admittedly - but that isn't one of the passages I have spent a great deal of time looking at.

Look forward to your answer Seeker

Thanks

Luigi
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
Quoth Hermit:

quote:
quote:You got it folks. The holocaust, the Rwandan massacres -

Karl, please refrain from commenting on my posts, as you've asked me to refrain from commenting on yours. For whatever reason your personal insults to me have been tolerated here - might I assume because the moderators share your political slant? But I'm simply in no mood, when there are people here who can play nicely by the rules, and are more thoughtful in their reasoning.
No, I asked you to actually read my posts before commenting on them. If you coudn't be bothered to read my posts, then don't. That was my point.

Secondly, that was not a personal attack. It was most definitely an attack on your position, and it was a robust one. I'm sorry you feel the need to invoke a conspiracy theory to explain it not being seized upon by the hosts here, but the simple fact is that it was within the rules of Purgatory.

With that out of the way, I've done a lot of thinking on this one, so all please excuse the long post that is to follow.

I've been trying to work out what exactly is the dividing line - the root of the difference. It's more than simple disagreement - we one the one side cannot imagine how the other is able to live with the interpretation they have; they, for they part, seem to get frustrated that we cannot accept what they do. Why is this?

I was also working through the problem that whilst I find the logic of Lep and Hermit's position - that God is the only possible objective source of morality compelling, I also find it deeply dissatisfying - and its conclusions repugnant.

Is this, I wonder, a difference between left- and right- brain dominated thinking? The left brain (hereafter the "Logician") wants a coherent, logical, step by step explanation, and this can be provided. But the right brain (hereafter the "artist") does not. He wants a satisfying one. The Logician subscribes to the view that reality is what reality is, and our feelings about it are irrelevent to truth. The Artist holds that "truth is beauty, and beauty truth" (OK, OK, but just work with me here for a moment) and so when the Logician's "truth" is ugly, he sends it back to the Logician marked "must try harder", or "I like not this news; bring me some other news".

The question we must ask ourselves is whether the Logician's or the Artist's method of approaching God is actually the better one - and it seems to me that this is what the fundamental divide on this thread is about. Those of us like me, Weed, Luigi, Esmeralda et al. are approaching this primarily with our Artist brains, whilst Lep, Hermit et al. are primarily approaching it with their Logician brains. So our collective Artist is rejecting the "truth" that their collective Logician is presenting them, because it is not true from the Artist's frame of reference.

So - is one way better? The Logician's way is scientific. Science is about studying objective phenomena. God is an objective phenomenon. So there's a point for the Logician.

But science is about studying objective phenomena that are ameanable (sp?) to measurement, experiment and objective observation, which God is not. So there is a possible limitation of the Logician's approach.

I remember some thirteen years ago now writing an essay on science, society and religion, where I quoted I forget who, saying something along the lines of:

the theologican and the scientist have in commoon that they must follow the truth whereever it leads, and accept what they find no matter how unpalatable.

But I now question whether that is true. The scientist looks at a copper sulphate molecule. It doesn't matter how emotional an attachment he has to the idea that it contains nitrogen, it simply, demonstrably, and precisely and objectively doesn't.

But is God as humanly comprehensiblw as a copper sulphate molecule? If He is not, then objective statements about him are far more tentative than ones about measurable scientific phenomena, and to that extent the scientific method and means of understanding is less appropriate.

Another point here is that the Bible is not logical. It does not contain nice Logician-friendly propositions about God; rather it contains Artist-friendly stories, metaphors and symbols. Sure, Logician-friendly propositions can be derived from the Bible, as everything from the Creeds to the UCCF DB, through Calvin's Institutes has sought to do, but the fact that the Bible itself, and much of Jesus' teaching, is in the non-logical, Artist-friendly format, indicates that the former would not have so adequately served its purpose as the latter.

If God is actually beyond human comprehension, then perhaps that swings the "which is a better means of understanding this?" question back onto us - the better method of relating to Him is whichever actually works for us. The "real answer" (if such there be) to the question "Did God order Joshua to commit genocide" may be neither "yes" nor "no", but something considerably more complex and esoteric than makes any sense whatsoever from our limited perspective, in this particular universe and form of existence. People are complicated enough, and working out another human being's motivations, actions and intentions is damned difficult; how much more so with God?

Therefore (if anyone's read this much verbal 'morning after the curry before') it seems to me that if Lep and Hermit, and Martin et al.'s answer works for them, then that's fine. What I need is the room to say that it most certainly doesn't work for me; what does work for me (or begins to at least) is to see these stories as much like the opening parts of Geoffrey of Monmouth's History of the Kings of Britain. Then, the genocides actually - for me and my particular orientation of left and right brains - have no more moral significance than the wiping out of the giants led by Gog and Magog by Brutus and the invading Britons.

Whew.

I expect this is going to be torn to shreds, but there you go.
 
Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 
For what probably isn't the last time, but should be, THERE IS NO HOSTLY BIAS. We have right-wing people and left-wing people on the hosting team. we have conservatives and liberals. We're all working on the same rules.

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
The "real answer" (if such there be) to the question "Did God order Joshua to commit genocide" may be neither "yes" nor "no", but something considerably more complex and esoteric than makes any sense whatsoever from our limited perspective, in this particular universe and form of existence. People are complicated enough, and working out another human being's motivations, actions and intentions is damned difficult; how much more so with God?
Although I think much of your thesis on the right-brain/left-brain dichotomy is over-simplified and (paradoxically) dualist, I like this sentiment. Not sure I agree with it, but I like it.
 
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
Although I think much of your thesis on the right-brain/left-brain dichotomy is over-simplified and (paradoxically) dualist, I like this sentiment. Not sure I agree with it, but I like it.
KLB,
I like it too. But not so much I agree with it I think because:
a) I think it jars with my own experience because I am more of an artist myself.
b) interestingly it sounds quite like a scientific theory
and
c) I think there's a right answer that isn't just defined by how it "sits" or "feels" with particular people. Even though making that assertion doesn't "sit" very well with me.

Nevertheless I have no doubt that the particular "strand" of Christianity we lean towards has more to do with personality type than my conservative evangelical brethren would care to admit.
 
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Esmeralda:
Thank you, Seeker, for adding 'experience' to the triad of 'Scripture, reason and tradition'; I have always wanted to do this, and in my experience the people I've known intimately who believe in the 'non-violent, pacifist God' at whom you are so willing to sneer, are generally much more Christlike, in my experience, than the people I've known who believed in a 'killer God'.
I don't think you're talking to me, but just want to be sure (sorry, it's my pedantic side).

I most certainly don't sneer at pacifism (although there may be times in an imperfect world where I'll concede to "put up with" self-defence as the least worst option). I think forgiveness and pacifism take far more obedience to the Divine, support from the Divine and inspiration from the Divine than punishment. We don't need a God to encourage us to hurt people who do us injustice; our sinful human nature will do that naturally. We don't need a God to help us hurt those who do us an injustice, our sinful human natures will happily do that too. It's not Divine to meet injustice with punishment; it's Divine to meet injustice with forgiveness.

I personally, am not very good at forgiving, so I know this from my experience of my own sinful nature. I don't don't advocate it because it's the easy way out for me.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
Of course it's oversimplified - I only came up with it at midnight last night, and this is hardly the place to develop a real thesis.

On the Dualism front, I ommitted to emphasise that of course we are all mixtures of different ways of thinking about things, and the right/left brain dichotomy is itself a model rather than a precise description of an objective reality. But I maintain it can be a useful way into the underlying issues - I think the same issues probably underlie the inerrancy and homosexuality dead horses. It is not that some of us are Artists and others Logicians, but which approach is dominating our thinking at any given time.

But at least it contained something useful.
 
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
But because what if I'm right? You've already said it Esmerelda. You can't worship the God of 80% of the Bible.
If you're right there really is no difference between heaven and hell. Except possibly that heaven will be worse than hell. So why should anyone care?
 
Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by linzc:
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
quote:
Originally posted by linzc
The text is only problematic if you feel an obligation to affirm the idea within the text that God desires (these particular) genocides.
No, it's problematic because God affirms genocides within the text.
Ok, let's take it another iteration. Would you say that the fact that God affirms genocide within the text is problematic because you feel an obligation to affirm the view of God represented by the text? If so, does this obligation apply uniformly to all aspects of Scripture?
The way I see it is this. Scripture is the main lingusitic source that we have to go on for the character of God. Jesus is the Word of God. How do we know? Because the Bible tells us so.

Therefore, any Christian at all has to to attach some sort of authority to the canon (I'm not implying that you don't, incidentally - just trying to get across my tortuous and frankly Lovecraftian logic here).

Does the obligation apply equally to all the bits of Scripture? I don't know.

Problem with most Biblical scholarship is that it's both conjectural and circular: while it might be right, more often than not it's actually a bunch of theories about what the text might mean and where it might have come from. Like the theory about Joshua being written in the reign of Josiah. Might be true, but where's the evidence? Um, it's in the Bible, mainly. Most of the earlier books in the OT are so ancient and come from a period of history which is so hazy that it's actually the best source by a long way.

Which is a problem, because it's not really a history book.

The first person ever to write history as a bald retelling of what actually happened was Polybius, a Greek who wrote about the Roman Republic. But before him, no one west of India (can't speak for the Far East - don't know anything about it) ever considered history to be worthwhile on its own merits. It always had to be about something. The "history" presented in Scripture, therefore, is about something. What's itabout? Israel and God.

It presents a view of God as the commander of genocide. Even though this view of God changes in the various texts in the canon, this one is given equal validity - in fact, possibly extra validity on the grounds of its place as the sequel to the Torah - as a view of God that the wroters held to and saw as good.

I'm part of a tradition that runs from that right up to now, that grew from that. Even though I might not now believe in a God who orders genocide, that view of God stands at the beginning, the foundation of the tradition in which I stand.

And so it's important that I make sense of it. Since somewhere along the line, it's where our religion comes from.

quote:
That would be what I refer to as a 'flat' reading of Scripture (and I certainly understand that you are not thereby arguing for an inerrantist position).
Um, OK. But you see, the implication of a flat reading of the text is a literalist one, and actually, believe it or not, it's the meaning that I'm groping for. Which may not be literal.

quote:
However, surely the particularly exclusive nationalistic interpretation of Israel's election held at the time of Christ was similarly culture-defining and history-defining, arguably more so. Yet we note that the New Testament overturns this national theology quite comprehensively.
Does it? There was me thinking it extended it.
quote:
So the fact that a belief has had even a central role in forming the character of Israel as a nation does not, in and of itself, require an affirmation of that belief.
No, but it requires an affirmation that it's part of the history of the development of our own beliefs.

quote:
As to authority, I think that it is in the understanding of how such authority operates that we most likely part company. For myself, the authority of Scripture comes from the fact that it is part of the pathway to encounter with Christ.
I don't think we part company all that drastically, you know, Linz.
quote:
So I would quite happily see passages like the 'genocide' ones as accurate recordings of one aspect of Israel's struggle to understand God and his character, and thus as important (though limited) steps to the understanding of God which we find expressed in its fullness in Christ.
But it's still about...

Aaaaaand here we go again... [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
So Seeker963, I think we are pretty close on a lot of issues but I think - I could be wrong - that the answers that satisfy you don't really work for me. This is also true of Linxc and Esmerelda.

Perhaps I'm a little odd - I know the split personality response where I pretend to myself that all of this can be harmonised by mere assertion doesn't hold water, but, having moved from that evangelical understanding, I still don't think that most of the suggested answers work. Indeed, I think there is a danger of not taking the text seriously enough.
I do actually understand what you're saying. My problem is that I don't yet have the language to communicate something which is still at the stage of "intuition". (I'm a very high Meyers-Briggs "N" and have to bring intuition into the congnative place and then put words on it.)

For me there have been no really satisfying intellectual answers since leaving received-evangelical theology. That's why I communicated the difference between faith and theology to Sebastian. And maybe, he wasn't all that off-base even though myself and others took excpetion to things he's said. At the end of the day, I actually resolved a lot of this stuff by praying.

I do actually take the biblical text a lot more seriously than most people on internet groups give me credit for. I think, in real life, the narrative has a huge amount of power and authority. When I preach as a lay person, I preach at a sort of "post-critical"/literal level and the evangelical congregations love me and the liberal ones don't like me very much because I'm not feeding the liberal congregations their William Barkley "explain away this miracle" interpretations; I'm challenging them to encounter God in the text.

Not very theologically sophisticated, I guess, but that's what I think is most important - encountering God in scripture, prayer and life. The suggestion "pray", really isn't a bad one.
 
Posted by Esmeralda (# 582) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
quote:
Originally posted by Esmeralda:
Thank you, Seeker, for adding 'experience' to the triad of 'Scripture, reason and tradition'; I have always wanted to do this, and in my experience the people I've known intimately who believe in the 'non-violent, pacifist God' at whom you are so willing to sneer, are generally much more Christlike, in my experience, than the people I've known who believed in a 'killer God'.
I don't think you're talking to me, but just want to be sure (sorry, it's my pedantic side).I most certainly don't sneer at pacifism
Sorry Seeker, I moved sentences around and failed to update my pronouns. The 'you' in the second half of the sentence is Martin, whom I'm primarily addressing. I thought his tone when he spoke of a non-violent God was unwarrantedly dismissive; some of the most Christlike people on earth have followed this God.
The only bit addressed to you was the thanks for adding 'experience' to the classic triad.
 
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:

Speaking of the story of Lot's daughters seducing him.

I think you should attempt an answer to that question first - I have spent a great deal of time studying parts of the OT - nowhere near enough of it admittedly - but that isn't one of the passages I have spent a great deal of time looking at.

Look forward to your answer Seeker
Luigi - I'm afraid I might disappoint you and I'm not even certain if you're being facetious. Yes, I could go study that story in detail and I might even learn something interesting, but I don't really think I'm going to do that now.

My point about history is that the history of the people of Israel is holy. (Again, put aside the idea of whether it is necessary that every single event happened exactly as told) That history is recorded warts and all because God's people interact with God warts and all.

Not saying this is an exegesis, but just off the top of my head. A people might do desperate things in order to survive - including procreating with close relatives. Some individuals might do desperate things to have children; could we meditate on this and learn something about the ethics of human cloning, for instance.

These are stories of a real people with a real interaction with God. As someone else said, Lot's daughters in this narrative are at least 3-dimensional characters - doing things we'd consider desperate and breaking huge taboos. The Old Testament (and the New Testament) - as you know - is filled with stories about real people doing real - and sometimes sinful things. They are grappling with God in a real way. They are arguing with God, wrestling with God. They are not looking glassy-eyed and saying "Thy will be done" in a squeeky, faux-pious voice - like we often seem to want to think of "religious" people.

A well-known Rabbi who survived the holocaust (name escapes me at the moment) said something along the lines of "A Jew may argue with God, and he may get angry with God. What he may not do is ignore God." I think this is a wonderful, real way to look at our relationship with God. And I think this "real relationship" is what is recorded in the bible. It wouldn't be real if everything recorded in it were fairy-tale, black and white morality.
 
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
It presents a view of God as the commander of genocide. Even though this view of God changes in the various texts in the canon, this one is given equal validity - in fact, possibly extra validity on the grounds of its place as the sequel to the Torah - as a view of God that the wroters held to and saw as good.
Wood, I confess that I've long lost an understanding of the gist of your problem. I don't know if this helps at all. Rabbi Joseph Telushkin (sp?) thinks, if I recall correctly, that Israel interpreted all the "crushing the Caananites" stories as being God's will because they were the only monotheists around and it was a story of minority monotheism trying to survive in a majority polytheistic world

I didn't present this theory previously because you seemed to not like the "the Victor re-wrote history" idea as being insufficiently PoMo and too far above the narrative level. But just thought I'd throw it out there to see if it would fly.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
Rabbi Joseph Telushkin (sp?) thinks, if I recall correctly, that Israel interpreted all the "crushing the Caananites" stories as being God's will because they were the only monotheists around and it was a story of minority monotheism trying to survive in a majority polytheistic world
Good point.

It's true that most of the battles are presented as defensive ones. The offensive battles were also mostly presented as a matter of the survival of the good monotheists against their idolatrous enemies.

They were commanded to utterly destroy the enemy not because they deserved it, but because they were an intolerable threat to the worship of Jehovah, that is, to peace and goodness in the world.

As long as we accept that this was really true, then Jehovah can be seen, not as one who authorizes genocide, but as the powerful protector of all that is good and true.

I suspect, however, that most of us don't really accept that the preservation of Israel, and giving them the land of Canaan, was the key to world peace, or that the battle was essentially a defensive one.
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
Peppone [Smile]

Seeker963, if "I'm" right, i.e. if Esmerelda is right AND I'm right by dialectical synthesis, i.e. both OT and NT salvation history are accurate: God is every positive good thing we could desire AND the God who drowned the world, etc, etc up to assassinating Ananias and Sapphira, then heaven is perfect ... and so is hell.
 
Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Seeker963, if "I'm" right, i.e. if Esmerelda is right AND I'm right by dialectical synthesis, i.e. both OT and NT salvation history are accurate: God is every positive good thing we could desire AND the God who drowned the world, etc, etc up to assassinating Ananias and Sapphira, then heaven is perfect ... and so is hell.
Martin, you're a genius.

A mad, visionary genius, but a genius nonetheless.

I know this is going to create a conundrum for the emergency services across the developed world, as people reading the Ship suffer a spate of seemingly unconnected cerebral haemorrhages, but how, how, how does the paradox of God being both/and result in a perfect heaven and a perfect hell?

[ 16. July 2004, 16:46: Message edited by: Wood ]
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
how, how, how does the paradox of God being both/and result in a perfect heaven and a perfect hell?
Because the alternative view is that God could have done something different, and better, than He did.

That's impossible.

So we are left with a world that is as good as it can be.

But I don't believe that God is both/and. [Disappointed]
 
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
Rabbi Joseph Telushkin (sp?) thinks, if I recall correctly, that Israel interpreted all the "crushing the Caananites" stories as being God's will because they were the only monotheists around and it was a story of minority monotheism trying to survive in a majority polytheistic world
As long as we accept that this was really true, then Jehovah can be seen, not as one who authorizes genocide, but as the powerful protector of all that is good and true.
Actually, I have no problem seeing it as a narrative that says "Israel experienced God as faithful when God helped them to crush their enemies". I do have a huge problem with seeing it that way "if this was really true". It means I worship a God who can't manifest himself in the hearts of people but rather "really" needs to obliterate them instead.

quote:
I suspect, however, that most of us don't really accept that the preservation of Israel, and giving them the land of Canaan, was the key to world peace, or that the battle was essentially a defensive one.
Rabbi Telushkin, interestingly, thinks that the mission of the Jewish people is and was to spread ethical monotheism (i.e., the worship of Yahweh) to the world. He accuses the Jewish people of having failed. I don't want to speak for him, but from what I've read, he holds all peoples as being equal before God and probably would not see Jews as having a unique divine right to the land.
 
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Peppone [Smile]

Seeker963, if "I'm" right, i.e. if Esmerelda is right AND I'm right by dialectical synthesis, i.e. both OT and NT salvation history are accurate: God is every positive good thing we could desire AND the God who drowned the world, etc, etc up to assassinating Ananias and Sapphira, then heaven is perfect ... and so is hell.
Sorry, no, I've lived with a mad bully who loves a person one minute and rounds on them the next minute, inflicting confusion and hurt. If heaven is all good things and all bad things, I don't want to be there. You might be cute and clever with your arguments, but I've lived with the madness and I'm praying that God is not like that.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
Rabbi Telushkin, interestingly, thinks that the mission of the Jewish people is and was to spread ethical monotheism (i.e., the worship of Yahweh) to the world. He accuses the Jewish people of having failed. I don't want to speak for him, but from what I've read, he holds all peoples as being equal before God and probably would not see Jews as having a unique divine right to the land.
I love that. I agree that this was the mission of Judaism, and I don't see Christianity's mission as being much different. They ought to be one and the same church.
 
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
Rabbi Telushkin, interestingly, thinks that the mission of the Jewish people is and was to spread ethical monotheism (i.e., the worship of Yahweh) to the world. He accuses the Jewish people of having failed. I don't want to speak for him, but from what I've read, he holds all peoples as being equal before God and probably would not see Jews as having a unique divine right to the land.
I love that. I agree that this was the mission of Judaism, and I don't see Christianity's mission as being much different. They ought to be one and the same church.
For once we agree [Smile]

By the way, it was Rabbi Telushkin's thoughts on Hebrew scripture that finally helped me to realise that Jews don't see the God of their scripture as being anything like a raging and angry God. If God's covenant was for all peoples - and I believe Paul got that right - then the theology that God was "for" Israel and "against" everyone else doesn't work very well.
 
Posted by Esmeralda (# 582) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
I suspect, however, that most of us don't really accept that the preservation of Israel, and giving them the land of Canaan, was the key to world peace, or that the battle was essentially a defensive one.
Indeed we don't - especially considering that present day Israel's supposedly 'defensive' killing of Palestinian civilians, for possession of the same territory, is possibly the greatest threat we have to world peace today. And I say this as a Jew who believes utterly that Israel has a right to existence.

quote:
Because the alternative view is that God could have done something different, and better, than He did.
That's impossible.
So we are left with a world that is as good as it can be.
All's for the best in the best of all possible worlds? God's in his heaven, all's right with the world? Whatever is, is right? Hmmm... hardly.
Of course God could have done something different. God could have fixed everything without us, or manipulated us like puppets.
But where then would be our human maturing? Where would be the joy of discovering that our paltry little efforts actually contributed to God's great plan of transformation? I'd rather have the slow, painful, two steps forward one step back, process of getting to the Kingdom, knowing that God in infinite mercy has chosen to use us weak, confused, glorious, marred, God-imaging human beings in the renewal of the world.
 
Posted by Sebastian (# 7494) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
quote:
Originally posted by Sebastian:
I believe in free will - I see now how my post could have been deemed otherwise...
I just also believe there are many who have yet to ask God for assistance in understanding difficult passages of scripture.
It's surprisingly easy to forget to ask God for assistance with a whole range of things. I know I forget often and I sometimes get caught up trying to do things in my own strength having completely forgotten to pray about the matter. I catch myself doing this embarrassingly frequently.

I think the suggestion to pray is sort of addressing a different level than this conversation has been on, which is perhaps why it seemed to jar.

I don't quite know how to express the idea, but for me there is a difference between faith and theology, although they both inform and feed each other. For me personally in my walk with God, theology is always provisional. I don't believe I'll ever know the full truth in this life. It's just trying to express a synthesis about "scripture, tradition, reason and experience". Faith, on the other hand, ultimately has a "little child" aspect to it. At the risk of sounding too Muslim, at the faith level, all I can ever really do is submit and obey.

In the terms I expressed above (which I suspect some will not agree with), you were talking at the "faith" level when the rest of the conversation had been at the "theology" level. Hope this makes sense.
Yes, what you say there does make sense - and I see your point clearer than I have before. - and this in light of what my original post as well.

I think there are those who were overly critical of what I had to say.

You've enlightened me on how the conversation differences between the faith or theology level
.

I believe they don't have to be mutually exclusive - in that it is good to ask God for assistance discerning passages of scripture (2 Cor chapt. 2).

Although some (not you) seem to consider that worthless (wow) and get quite ruffled over the idea, even suggesting it - even though others (a larger audience beyond this one) may benifet from the idea.

I appreciate your enlightenment - that helps. Your post was far more human and decent than some.

I remember a church in Alaska that lived by the principle saying that one could be dead right, but completely wrong if they violate God's first rule of love for others.

Thanks again for your enlightenment.

God bless

Sebastian
 
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
Thanks for your kindness, Sebastian. [Smile] I appreciate it in the face of my earlier sarcasm.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Esmeralda:
I'd rather have the slow, painful, two steps forward one step back, process of getting to the Kingdom, knowing that God in infinite mercy has chosen to use us weak, confused, glorious, marred, God-imaging human beings in the renewal of the world.
That's my feeling also. So doesn't that make this the best of all possible worlds? [Biased]

Not so great a world, maybe, only better than one in which people were not free. [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Tuggboat (# 7001) on :
 
I've found an interesting discrepancy that relates to this subject. I went back to the first original battle and tried to puzzle out why the Lord Cursed the Amalekites in the first place. At first I thought the Israelites were cursed to fight them for generations because Moses had took the decision to retaliate into his own hands without conferring with the Lord as to the proper manner or even if He should use his Staff. It is one of two time he uses it without God's instruction to do so. The second time he uses it instead of speaking to the rock and for this he doesn't get to go into the promised land. all the rest of the times God tells him what to do and how to do it.

It still might be that fighting the Amalekites was a consequence of Moses use of free will but I found besides what I call the curse references that the reason they were bound to fight for generations is because the Amalekites or Moses "raised" " their fists or hand" "to or onto" the "Throne" of God. Perhaps this belongs in Kergymania. A majority of bible versions translate three Hebrew words as "Hath sworn" The Hebrew doesn't even suggest this. The three words in question bare these Strong Numbers 3027, 5921 and 3676.
Roughly for those without Strongs
3027 Open hand literal or figurative
5921 Above over or beyond
3676 a contraction of properly covered. Translated as Throne or improperly Banner because a banner isn't covered But Gods throne is covered by angels wings if I remember.

The root 3680 (3676 w/o the contraction) is used as "covered" close to 6000 times

Ex 17:16-18:1
16 For he said, Because the LORD hath sworn that the LORD will have war with Amalek from generation to generation. KJV

Many versions follow the KJ's lead

Ex 17:15-18:1
15 Moses built an altar and called it The LORD is my Banner. 16 He said, "For hands were lifted up to the throne of the LORD. The LORD will be at war against the Amalekites from generation to generation."
(from New International Version)

Ex 17:16
16 He said, "They have dared to raise their fist against the Lord's throne, so now the LORD will be at war with Amalek generation after generation."
NLT

Ex 17:16-18:1
16 saying, "A hand upon the banner of the LORD! The LORD will have war with Amalek from generation to generation."
RSV

These get closer but they disagree. Does anybody know what this means in relation to our topic? I feel we can find our answers in the original decision better than the battles that followed. At least that's been my own experience with myself. I always look to my original quarrel with somebody when I'm looking for an honest cause of discord, hence my following this line of logic.
 
Posted by hermit (# 1803) on :
 
Hadn't really intended to get back into this thread since I've had my say, but here's an extra bit of information ... according to my NIV study Bible the Amalekites were Bedouin descended from Esau, who "despised his birthright".
 
Posted by Tuggboat (# 7001) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by hermit:
Hadn't really intended to get back into this thread since I've had my say, but here's an extra bit of information ... according to my NIV study Bible the Amalekites were Bedouin descended from Esau, who "despised his birthright".
Yeah Hermit, He sold it for a bowl of soup. What gets me is how we (me) often sell myself or my faith to make a Buck. My hunger for things of this earth outweighs my reliance on God.

His description as ruddy and hairy makes me wonder if he was a different species of man. Since god loves his creation but Hated Essau I wonder if whether he was God's creation or the Devil's meddling attempt to create a life that hated and resisted God. Atthe least It contended with the other from the very beginning

Gen 25:22-23
22 The babies jostled each other within her, and she said, "Why is this happening to me?" So she went to inquire of the LORD.

23 The LORD said to her,

"Two nations are in your womb,
and two peoples from within you will be separated;
one people will be stronger than the other,
and the older will serve the younger."
(from New International Version)
 
Posted by Little Weed (# 4402) on :
 
quote:
Hadn't really intended to get back into this thread since I've had my say, but here's an extra bit of information ... according to my NIV study Bible the Amalekites were Bedouin descended from Esau, who "despised his birthright".
Hermit and Tuggboat -

This illustrates perfectly why the flat interpretation of these particular passages of scripture isn’t a matter of angels dancing on a pin. What all these passages are clearly saying on their face is that the cosmic God decided who to punish on the basis of which bloodline they came from, ie by race, and that that race had to be wiped out because it was irredeemably anti-God and therefore anti-Jew. It seems to me that the implications of this are vast and not only concerning the nature of God. However, to discuss any further whether we apply the plain meaning means we have to do something with the dead horse that’s been lying in the corner during this discussion. I will post something to the inerrancy thread if anyone wants to continue the discussion there.

I’m still interested in what more Luigi has to say because he’s been very good at inviting others to speak without disclosing his own hand fully. [Smile]
 
Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :
 
Little Weed – first let me say how much I have enjoyed reading your contributions. I think in many ways we are on a similar page and you may well be heading into similar waters. However we will see.

The reason I haven’t responded earlier is because I don’t seem to have that much time to post and be a deputy head, in a particularly difficult period, in a school on the south coast of England.

quote:
Originally posted by Little Weed:
quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
If there is a problem with this passage in the text - and we accept that it is acceptable to 'go against the text' as it appears to be what Jesus did and it certainly seems to be part of a lot of Jewish thinking. Then we are left with the question of why this passage is there in the first place.
This is all very pragmatic and non-learned I’m afraid, and I am deliberately avoiding the question of divine inspiration. The points are in no particular order of importance.

Why include it in the Jewish Bible?

1. It was Jewish history, recording an important part of the story. From the beginning God is woven into the structure of Jewish life and politics. It’s a practical rather than mystical religion for the vast majority.
This is still a problem – why record this part of the story as if it affirms genocide when we both believe it is wrong.
quote:

2. Joshua, read straight, has nationalistic value. Israel was constantly being lax and rebellious against the political-religious leadership of the time (there being no difference between politics and religion). It was a good message on both counts: if you obey God you will win battles; if you don’t, he will give you over to captivity.
I’m afraid I don’t buy this. This whole ‘if you’re a good guy you get rewarded and if you’re a bad guy you get punished’ doesn’t hold water. I’ll could just mention the holocaust or point to the number of faithful Christians who have not been protected by God throughout history.
quote:

3. We revere the works of earlier times, especially military heroes. Things get hallowed with time and reputations enhanced.
This is true but why repeat a text that seems to revere a genocidal maniac?
quote:

4. I don’t know when it was written. Was it handed down first orally then written down? From internal evidence within Joshua and Judges there are conflicts with the timing and battles won and lost during Joshua's lifetime. There seem to me clearly two different voices and no attempt to reconcile the texts.
Now I think you are really onto something. Two voices within the whole of scripture, but how do we distinguish between the two? Which voice should we follow? Which voice is right?
quote:

5. People were theologising as they wrote it. It wasn’t seen as invention to put words of God into eg Joshua’s mouth. There’s a way of thinking in the Middle East (see Saddam Hussein’s Information Minister) that says if it ought to happen/have happened it must happen/have happened. It isn’t lying through your teeth or spin in the western sense; it’s telling the truth even though it conflicts with reality.
I think putting words in God’s mouth *is* invention. This deception is deeply problematic because it is so misleading.

Will try to put my position forward when I have time.

Luigi
 
Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :
 
A few comments:

Karl – I think you are right, for me an answer must be satisfying. Some problems can be explained away using the wriggle room that logic and language give us. That doesn’t mean it is satisfying. I think virtually any position can be defended by making logic turn in on itself. Having said that, I want an answer that works when approached logically and when approached artistically.

For me logic is very important but unless a subject is looked at with an awareness of the emotional resonances then it is almost certainly illogical. After all it isn’t logical, in my view, to leave out so much important data. I cannot see how those justifying OT genocide are engaging with the emotional resonances. Perhaps they look at the passage and think: ‘Yeah, I could slit a two year olds throat. I could cut a pregnant woman in half – probably the most humane way to kill both quickly.' And if anyone says that they would find it difficult but God would help them to do it, then I will scream.

Seeker 963 – I hope I don’t come across as being facetious.

Linxc – the whole idea that it is all just a part of the story of a journey towards a better understanding of God seems to be true. But what I couldn’t work out was why the text affirms the Israelites taking two steps back when they needed to take two steps forward. Humans have enough problems walking away from evil without them being encouraged to do evil because ‘God said’. BTW I don’t buy all the God did it to show how special the Jews were. A few problems there methinks.

Lapsed heathen – you said …..
quote:
Could it be not that it's the opposite of sinful people refuse to commit genocide but exactly that sinful people do commit genocide. God may not have ordered the genocide but the Israelites who saw themselves as God's chosen could not live in good conscience with genocide without invoking God as the author of the action.
The Bible is not a collection of individual little lessons. It's a collection which taken together make one lesson. We are redeemed and can attain our original true purpose, to love and serve God.
I think you are going in the right direction there.

Will respond to grey face later when I have time.

Luigi
 
Posted by Zeke (# 3271) on :
 
Tuggboat:

Different species? Give me a break. If you are going to get all literalist about other things, do recall that Jacob and Esau were twins, albeit very different fraternal ones.

And where does it say that God hated Esau? He certainly seems to have blessed him in those years when Jacob was away, so much so that there was no bitterness left at all toward his brother--he welcomed him with open arms and graciously refused the lavish gifts Jacob had prepared to give him. Esau actually seems to have been a much nicer person than Jacob, but God occasionally seems to make odd choices in whom to favor.

Please elucidate about God hating Esau, because I don't see it--possibly I missed a verse somewhere.
 
Posted by LatePaul (# 7562) on :
 
quote:
"I have loved you," says the LORD. But you say, "How have you loved us?"
"Is not Esau Jacob's brother?" declares the LORD. "Yet I have loved Jacob but Esau I have hated. I have laid waste his hill country and left his heritage to jackals of the desert."
(Malachi 1.2-3)
quote:
As it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."
(Romans 9.13)

 
Posted by Zeke (# 3271) on :
 
Well, I stand corrected. Thanks for the quotes.
 
Posted by Tuggboat (# 7001) on :
 
I don't have the connecting logic but this looks like an extension of the original Angelic conflict. I'm open to the idea of a Demonic race.

Maybe this lacks sensitivity toward the newborn but:

Gen 25:25-26
25 The first to come out was red, and his whole body was like a hairy garment; so they named him Esau.

5:25 e Esau may mean hairy; he was also called Edom, which means red.
(from New International Version)

Red and like a Hairy garment doesn't sound real human to me. It actually sounds like he was hairy like the abominable snowman. The word more aptly means mantle or robe. We're not talking about a baby with a full head of hair here. If I saw a Hairy Red man coming at me I'd be tempted to say what instead of who.
And If the race actually contended for the throne of God like the verse I am contending with several posts above seems to indicate I can see why they'd have to have battles like they did.
The Amalekites would have been the personification of evil at a national and racial level.
All the connecting logic and stories on the Angelic conflict are in spurious texts that I'm just barely familiar with.

How's that for a flat reading of scripture?
 
Posted by LatePaul (# 7562) on :
 
Red and Hairy says to me that he was red and hairy - it's quite an extrapolation to see that as another species. If you think these qualities are unknown in the human race you may need to meet a wider variety of people.

I find the idea that these were some demonic sub-human species that therefore it's ok to destroy them wholesale as repellant as the idea that it's ok because God says so.

I think you're putting too much weight on too little evidence for that theory to fly. With me at any rate. You haven't by any chance been reading/watching Lord of the Rings lately have you?
 
Posted by Tuggboat (# 7001) on :
 
Hahhaa
No it stems from a tape series that I went thru. It taught about the invisible conflict of angels and demons around us. It talked about Satans original fall and the angels that followed him.

Does sound like Lord of the Rings doesn't it.

It was really farfetched but fascinating until I found the sources of his ideas. The idea of spiritual warfare intrigues me and makes sense at a basic level. I often read from this spiritual viewpoint when I read of conflict and demons.

I did not always believe in Evil and this stuff was nuts until I ran into evil and came to believe its real. Still, that other races or groups are evil has been used as an excuse for genocide and war. Its always been a false excuse. But, Could the devil manifest evil in a race of man?
 
Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :
 
Tuggboat - I guess your post shows the lengths that some Christians go to, to square circles.

I have read a number of holocaust apologists and their far fetched beliefs sound alarmingly sensible compared to some of the stuff proposed by some Christians to justify / explain away OT genocide.

Really quite bizarre!

Luigi

[ 18. July 2004, 21:19: Message edited by: Luigi ]
 
Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :
 
In response to Greyface:
quote:

I'm still sat on the fence as far as the nature of this passage goes but I'll have a shot at it.

Why is it there? I can think of several possible reasons other than the literalist/inerrantist one (sorry Lep, I think the cap fits on this one and I don't mean it in a derogatory sense).

1. Progressive revelation - has the time come now for this perception of God's actions to be challenged? Is it in the Bible for this very purpose - to be reinterpreted? I'm curious as to how people see the application of the passage that has the Spirit leading us into all truth, in the light of, for example, the abolition of slavery, or the ordination of women, or wearing hats in church etc. Changing views (and I'm aware that at least one is highly contentious) of the Bible can happen over a long period of time.

Yeap! Almost certainly right
quote:

2. Metaphorical - it's, to be blunt, a kick up the arse to those on the fringes of the Church to make the jump, because Bad Things Happen to those outside (this isn't a character of God issue, I see it in much the same way as Jesus' warnings of hell, which is another topic)

No – don’t buy this at all. I don’t think that God only looks after those inside church.
quote:

3. It was there to make the Israelites/Jews act in a particular way in their later history as they read the Scriptures. It no longer has this effect (note how ready we are, as a whole, to condemn the idea that God would command genocide today, particularly those of the cons-evo persuasion, which is what makes this thread to a certain extent a bit silly, other than from the apologetics angle)

Don’t think this thread is silly at all. The fact that most on this thread imply that they would be reluctant to kill two year olds etc doesn’t mean much at all. As far as I can see humans have the same extremely violent tendencies as they have always had. Just because the opportunity and motivation aren’t there at the moment means very little.

As to your first sentence in the above paragraph - how does this work? Are you saying that by affirming genocide this will ensure that the Israelites will not commit genocide later in their history? You see I think you are right but for a long time I couldn’t see how a text that was so wrong could push the Israelites in the right direction.
quote:

4. It's there because that was the view of the writer and it's wrong, much like the other apparent contradictions, and God intended us to realise that, allowing us to deduce the nature of Biblical authority - hence this discussion and many others like it.

Again I think this is true, but it still lacks clarity.
quote:

Then there's 5. The Bible is as full of holes as a Swiss cheese, and not to be trusted on much at all. I leave it out on the grounds that I don't think we have any non-Christians left in the discussion.

Went through a stage of thinking this – by the way it isn’t only non-Christians that think the Bible is full of holes. There are plenty of liberal scholars who still consider themselves Christian even though they think the Bible is like Swiss cheese.
quote:

Can I insert my usually disclaimer about being a baby theologian here? There are people on this thread who've studied and lived Christianity for longer than I've been alive and many times longer than I've been doing it, and many that are far cleverer than me too , and don't anyone be stupid enough to think that's false modesty. I know when I'm outclassed.

My view on which is true is a combination of 0 to 4 that changes from minute to minute, so don't read much into what I wrote, please, but you did ask.

This isn’t meant to be patronising, but it will probably come across as such, I think your instincts push you in the right direction much of the time. The right direction is of course to move towards the same conclusions as I have. [Biased]

Luigi
 
Posted by Esmeralda (# 582) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LatePaul:
quote:
"I have loved you," says the LORD. But you say, "How have you loved us?"
"Is not Esau Jacob's brother?" declares the LORD. "Yet I have loved Jacob but Esau I have hated. I have laid waste his hill country and left his heritage to jackals of the desert."
(Malachi 1.2-3)
quote:
As it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."
(Romans 9.13)
May I comment on this as a Jew by birth, though admittedly a Central European one a long way from Jacob and Esau?
In my experience of the Jewish way of saying thing, you generally put your case in the most extreme terms possible, just for the sake of argument and to get heard above the sound of everyone talking at the same time. In terms of this culture, 'Esau I hated' is not meant to be taken literally, it's just meant to make the biggest possible contrast with 'Jacob I loved'.
ISTM that one of our problems in reading the Bible in general is that we read as Anglo-Saxon folk who think that what's said is exactly what's meant - after all, in my experience of English people, they either say what they mean or somewhat less, or don't speak at all. Exaggerating is highly frowned upon.
I first became aware of this culture gap when, for a course, I read through Paul's epistles all in one go, without stopping to analyse every verse. 'Oh, I get it!' I suddenly thought. 'He's one of those dogmatic Jewish men who overstate everything - I've met loads, especially rabbis'. I could just see him dictating to Silas, and then saying - 'Hang on, did I just say that? Well I didn't really mean it quite like that, I'd better qualify it a bit'. That's how his stuff reads.
If we apply this to the OT, recognizing that it wasn't written by Christians, but by Semites who always made their stories as dramatic as possible - well, it doesn't solve the genocide thing but it gives us a whole new perspective.
So - maybe we should stop reading in such an English (and possibly Protestant, too) manner?
 
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :
 
Further to what Esmerelda has posted:

Some years ago I read a book by an Aramaic speaker, who made the point that exaggeration is inherent in spoken aramaic and always has been. He used the example of Jesus referring to a mustard plant growing to be as big as a tree, so that the birds could nest in it, and explained that Jesus was speaking in typical aramaic fashion, using exaggeration (mustard does not grow like this). Many of the hard saying in the gospels need to be read through this lens rather than literally.

I would guess that this charateristic of aramaic may be inherited (?)/shared with Hebrew, and that as a result, as she says, we need to avoid reading much of the text "plainly".

John
 
Posted by Zeke (# 3271) on :
 
Thank you both for bringing this up. This was indeed my own impression of the two verses, but didn't want to be accused of just coming up with something that sounded slick because I was suddenly confronted with them.

Don't forget either that Jesus said whoever doesn't hate his own family isn't worthy of the Kingdom of Heaven. Although I have not a doubt that there are a few to take this "as Gospel" so to speak, I think he was grossly exaggerating to make his point there. I am glad to see that a couple of people have made this point as well.

[added clarifying word]

[ 19. July 2004, 02:12: Message edited by: Zeke ]
 
Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :
 
I think you are right about Jewish use of hyperbole. However, I also think that it may be significant that it is not in the gospel. I personally think Jesus used hyperbole rather more cleverly than the OT prophets or Paul did. That is not to disparage either of them - particularly the OT prophets.

I realise this may be almost blasphemy to those who worship the Bible as much as they worship Jesus.

Luigi
 
Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :
 
Little Weed wanted to know my take on this issue so here goes. First let me say that on my journey away from a conservative evangelical position 80% of my journey I found I could improvise largely on my own. However the final 20% I just couldn’t work out a way forward that didn’t duck the difficult questions. And that 20% is all about this issue and issues related to it. I knew that the OT genocides – and many other practices - were problematic to say the least, but why were they there? Then I looked everywhere I could and read a great deal and still couldn’t find any satisfactory answers. Not even in the liberal camp which I was becoming a lot more sympathetic to.

The following was the only answer that I found satisfying and in actual fact it answered a lot more questions than I thought it would. It is unashamedly based on Rene Girard’s thinking, the Christian anthropologist, although I have improvised here and there. Apologies for its reductive tendencies – how do you distil 30-40 years of scholarship (well over 5 books) into a few posts? I don’t know but this is my effort.

Let’s step back from the ‘evangelical received text’ view of the scriptures and approach them in a totally different way. Sorry but this will take more than one post – even though the ideas are in many ways very simple.

Let’s consider how founding stories seemed to operate in the ancient world.

Many founding stories were stories told to tell of how the community emerged. And they seem to have been told to produce coherence within that community. Now many of the founding stories seem to be based on violence and disguising the role it had in producing peace and unanimity within the community. The role it appears to have had has been massive – the more I read in this area the more I was convinced.

Now just suppose that almost all the ideas that emerge from the OT are also present in other cultures. (We just happen to be more aware of the founding stories in the Judeo-Christian tradition.) The idea of a god (gods?) who will be on the side of those who worship him; a god who will give good harvests to those who bring animal sacrifices for him to consume, was just too attractive to the most of the ancients for them to ignore.

Of course when God, no matter what you call him, doesn’t always make your tribe the most powerful, the weather systems still seems to be alarmingly unpredictable no matter what your religious practices, then you have to up the ante and sacrifice children from your tribe, or the deformed, some of your enemies etc. Hence the reason for the incredibly widespread practice of human sacrifice in the ancient world.

Now this was just one of the key ways in which violence played a central role in ancient religion. Violence appears to have happened for a number of other reasons, all probably related, and from the tribe’s point of view these stories and rituals could not be questioned because of the cohesion they brought to the tribe.

Just suppose that this sort of sacrificial logic was present in almost all ancient people – control of the Gods was an imperative for the vast majority of people groups. Therefore the practices and rituals were almost always just variations on a theme. Of course if these practices troubled them in the same way they do us – and they had, I believe, consciences that potentially found these practices equally repugnant - then this would mean that the rituals would be questioned.

Therefore the role that these founding stories had to play was to hide the problematic parts of the story from the tribe. They had to be told in such a way that the barbaric practices that needed to become ritualised, had to be disguised or euphemised. They had to avoid troubling the conscience of the participants.

Now suppose that the OT is every bit as immersed in the same sacrificial logic and consequently the stories are in many ways almost identical. However, there is in my view one key difference and this difference means that certain things emerge from the OT scriptures that don’t emerge as clearly from other founding stories. (Incidentally, I don’t think it matters that much what they called their God, the question is how accurate was their perception of God.... Did their perception of God mean that love of God and love of neighbour were in opposition?)

So the OT tells much the same stories but the key difference is that the opposition between the two great commands becomes increasingly obvious because of the way in which these stories are told. Put simply this is how the leitmotif of the OT emerges – the debunking of sacrificial logic is its key theme.

Do you see what I am saying so far? I realise this is very sketchy and I haven’t even spoken of the role of founding murder stories but I think this will do to start with.

Luigi
 
Posted by Little Weed (# 4402) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Esmeralda:
I first became aware of this culture gap when, for a course, I read through Paul's epistles all in one go, without stopping to analyse every verse. 'Oh, I get it!' I suddenly thought. 'He's one of those dogmatic Jewish men who overstate everything - I've met loads, especially rabbis'.
Yes!! I get such a different picture of Paul from reading his epistles straight through and quickly than if I linger on each verse. I said before that he fairly fizzes with enthusiasm and ideas like "better marry than burn" can come across somewhat differently from the way they do through the very stolid, analytical, academic way we more often use.

And yes, too, to John Holding and Zeke. And it's not only a Jewish way of expressing things, from my albeit limited experience it appears to be a real cultural difference between the Middle East and the West.

Recently I heard a translator explaining the difficulties of conveying the tone of Saddam Hussein's rhetoric to a western audience. He said that it was an ancient way of speaking that had been preserved to the present day because of the Koran. As the Koran was believed to be the dictated and unchangeable words of God and regularly read out loud, the style of expressing oneself in everyday life hadn't changed that much. To an English person, used to saying, "This is quite nice" whilst meaning, "I like this very much indeed" the high flown, apocalyptic and violent language spoken by some people in Iraq would naturally come over as utterly alien and extreme. His dilemma as translator was whether to convey the words accurately and give the wrong meaning or to tone down the words so they would carry the right weight to western ears.

This is why I believe it is so important to try to understand the OT as a first century Jew would have understood it to understand the NT fully and why I find it sometimes an impossible task to understand what meaning some of the OT writers were trying to convey at the time they were writing. Maybe it just is impossible in some cases and we should recognise our limitations.
 
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Little Weed:

This is why I believe it is so important to try to understand the OT as a first century Jew would have understood it to understand the NT fully and why I find it sometimes an impossible task to understand what meaning some of the OT writers were trying to convey at the time they were writing. Maybe it just is impossible in some cases and we should recognise our limitations.
Can I just clarify - and this is a question based on my ignorance, rather than any desire to win points - are you saying a first century Jew would have viewed the events in Joshua as
a) non-historical
or
b) historical but not ordered by God?
 
Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Can I just clarify - and this is a question based on my ignorance, rather than any desire to win points - are you saying a first century Jew would have viewed the events in Joshua as
a) non-historical
or
b) historical but not ordered by God?
I don't know where Little Weed is going with this, but, from what I know about the period (which is far from authoritative), I think a first century Jew would have seen it as ordered by God, and as "historical", although - and this is the important bit - a first-century idea of the meaning of the word "historical" is different to ours.

This can't be stressed enough. We live in a world with cameras, and audio recording stuff, and video, and film, and we can recall an event by going into an archive; we can tell what someone important said by accessing a recording of it. For a long, long time, all that anyone had to go on was memory. People recognised that memory was unreliable, and that therefore there was only so close any "historical" account would get to what actually happened. That was why, for example, people had no problem with taking two, three or even maybe four accounts of important accounts together, even if in some specifics they disagreed. An eyewitness could tell a different story to another, and both could be telling the whole truth.

Consequently, their emphasis on "facts" was a lot less than ours is, and so they tended to value other facets of their historical accounts, primarily: what can I learn from this? and: Is this entertaining to read?

The theory of "Profit with Delight"* was more or less hardwired into the way the ancients thought about historical writing.

(Tangentially, those who believe in the doctrine of Plenary Inspiration shouldn't feel that grasping this fact is a threat to that, for obvious reasons. There are plenty of arguments against it, but this isn't one of them.)

__________
*Incidentally, the title of a fascinating book by the unfortunately named Richard Pervo, which analyses the Acts, the Apocryphal Acts and some other early Christian texts from a narratological standpoint. Possibly in the library of your local academic institution.

[ 19. July 2004, 10:37: Message edited by: Wood ]
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
Tangentially, those who believe in the doctrine of Plenary Inspiration shouldn't feel that grasping this fact is a threat to that, for obvious reasons. There are plenty of arguments against it, but this isn't one of them.
I agree that this fact is not a threat to believing in the truth and inspiration of the Bible.

However, in deference to Leprechaun's question, it does seem to me that many of the explanations we are giving here assume that the accounts have their origin in people and not God. This is fine with me if what we mean is that God works through the people and cultures involved.

For Wood's original question to be answered, it seems to me that it is necessary for the account of these events be divine in origin, or in some way held to be legitimately from God. Otherwise we just chalk it up to the hyperbolic, violent, and chauvinistic ideas of an ancient people and culture. If we do that, the reason for the thread vanishes. Or am I misunderstanding the point of the thread?
 
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :
 
Thanks Wood. And Freddy for being deferential to my question!

My issue is with the direct line that is seems to be being drawn between the way ancients "understood" history and the way some people on the thread have, in a pretty postmodern way said "yes that's what it says, but this is what it actually means. And by the way, that's because of the way the ancients understood history".

I was aware of the phenomena of the way history was understood that Wood explained very accessibly. Yet I can't help feeling that a first century Jew would actually be quite surprised at some of the explanations of Joshua being floated here - they seem to be borne out of rather more twenty-first century sensibilities.
 
Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
I was aware of the phenomena of the way history was understood that Wood explained very accessibly. Yet I can't help feeling that a first century Jew would actually be quite surprised at some of the explanations of Joshua being floated here - they seem to be borne out of rather more twenty-first century sensibilities.
Hence my discomfort with some of the "yeah, but it didn't really happen, did it?" explanations.

I think that a first-century Jew wouldn't have had any problems at all with the morality of genocide.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
"yes that's what it says, but this is what it actually means. And by the way, that's because of the way the ancients understood history".
I agree. The whole point here is to reconcile two things: The two obvious way of achieving this reconciliation are But these explanations do not reconcile, they simply deny one half of the equation.
 
Posted by Little Weed (# 4402) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
My issue is with the direct line that is seems to be being drawn between the way ancients "understood" history and the way some people on the thread have, in a pretty postmodern way said "yes that's what it says, but this is what it actually means. And by the way, that's because of the way the ancients understood history".
I'll adopt Wood's explanation if I may to your previous question, Leprechaun. [Smile] I still think you are drawing a false distinction above between what the bible says and what it actually means. Judaism has some pretty esoteric methods of scriptural interpretation and the ancients had to be taught what the scriptures meant.

quote:
I was aware of the phenomena of the way history was understood that Wood explained very accessibly. Yet I can't help feeling that a first century Jew would actually be quite surprised at some of the explanations of Joshua being floated here - they seem to be borne out of rather more twenty-first century sensibilities.
It depends on which 1st century Jew you're thinking of though, doesn't it? You have the religious elite who are legalistic and have lost sight of the overall reasons behind the Law and then you have Jesus (not to mention all the other groupings such as the Zealots).

Jesus himself gives a reinterpretation of various aspects of the Law. He doesn't condemn his disciples for grinding corn in their hands on the Sabbath, yet to the rich young man who has obeyed the Law precisely he says that isn't enough. When he talks about anger being as bad as murder, even if you accept it as over the top language, do you think he commended all the killings in the OT? The gospels are frustratingly silent for the most part on the specifics but we have all those instructions about loving one's enemies and this from a man who was all too familiar with the Roman occupation and the longing of Israel to be free.

Incidentally, I read the whole of Matthew yesterday with Joshua in mind, thinking that as it was addressed specifically the Jews it might shed some light on these issues. What struck me as never before about Matthew's emphasis on Jesus as the Messiah was the continuity with the OT. On the other hand, what also shines out from the gospels is what has always seemed to me a most contemporary attitude of Jesus to the value of the individual.
 
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Little Weed:
It depends on which 1st century Jew you're thinking of though, doesn't it? You have the religious elite who are legalistic and have lost sight of the overall reasons behind the Law and then you have Jesus (not to mention all the other groupings such as the Zealots).
Well yes. Which was why I was a little confused at your offering "geting into the mind of the contemporary Jew" as an explanation.
IMO Matthew's Gospel is not at all silent on Jesus attitude to the acts of "barbarism" in the OT, although admittedly Joshua is not mentioned. Jesus does say for example that Capernaum (I think, I haven't got a Bible beside me) deserves a worse fate than Sodom, if we could really imagine such a thing.

I don't doubt there were some esoteric methods of interpretation. What I doubt is that any of these led to your particular interpretation, which as I said appears to owe more to 21st century values, with a tokenistic appeal to 1st century understandings of history than anything else.
 
Posted by Little Weed (# 4402) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Well yes. Which was why I was a little confused at your offering "geting into the mind of the contemporary Jew" as an explanation.
As the scriptures we are talking about are ones that the two faiths have in common, don't you think it is useful to know how present day Judaism sees them?

quote:
IMO Matthew's Gospel is not at all silent on Jesus attitude to the acts of "barbarism" in the OT, although admittedly Joshua is not mentioned. Jesus does say for example that Capernaum (I think, I haven't got a Bible beside me) deserves a worse fate than Sodom, if we could really imagine such a thing.
Does that imply that God deliberately destroyed Sodom? It doesn't to me.

quote:
I don't doubt there were some esoteric methods of interpretation. What I doubt is that any of these led to your particular interpretation, which as I said appears to owe more to 21st century values, with a tokenistic appeal to 1st century understandings of history than anything else.
In that case, a genuine question. When Jesus talked about loving your enemies, was he talking purely about personal morality rather than what Israel did as a nation? If he wasn't and this was intended to be a universal commandment, why is his message different from when he was part of the Trinity commanding genocide?
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
The problem I have with writing off disquiet at the concept of genocide as "21st Century Values" is the implication that we should abandon them, as God doesn't share them - in other words, accept that genocide is sometimes right.

That I cannot do. I'm back to Winston in the chair again. How can I see five fingers when there are clearly four?
 
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
The problem I have with writing off disquiet at the concept of genocide as "21st Century Values" is the implication that we should abandon them, as God doesn't share them - in other words, accept that genocide is sometimes right.
Karl, in this case, that's not I was asking anyone to do. I agree with you that the explanation for this passage requires much more than a doff off the cap to "post enlightenment views of humanity." The reason I am still reading this thread is to try and work out that explanation.
What I was objecting to was the dressing up of what are clearly twentieth first century values in the guise of "this was the way ancients wrote their history". No doubt there needs to be some of that in our analysis of the passages, but please let's not "miraculously" find that reading it in the context of the ancient world actually means that the message we find difficult is non-applicable. As Wood rightly said, there seemed to be little in 2nd temple Judaism that would have found these passages a moral problem.
 
Posted by Cheesy* (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
The problem I have with writing off disquiet at the concept of genocide as "21st Century Values" is the implication that we should abandon them, as God doesn't share them - in other words, accept that genocide is sometimes right.

That I cannot do. I'm back to Winston in the chair again. How can I see five fingers when there are clearly four?
Someone explain what the problem is with the concept of God changing his mind....

C
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Cheesy*:
Someone explain what the problem is with the concept of God changing his mind....
The Bible says He does not change.
quote:
For I am the LORD, I do not change. Malachi 3.6

 
Posted by Cheesy* (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Cheesy*:
Someone explain what the problem is with the concept of God changing his mind....
The Bible says He does not change.
quote:
For I am the LORD, I do not change. Malachi 3.6
That isn't the same as changing your mind. Or is it?

C
 
Posted by Sean D (# 2271) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Cheesy*:
That isn't the same as changing your mind. Or is it?
I agree. Either God is a fibber or he changes his mind viz-a-viz the whole destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah episode.
 
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sean D:
quote:
Originally posted by Cheesy*:
That isn't the same as changing your mind. Or is it?
I agree. Either God is a fibber or he changes his mind viz-a-viz the whole destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah episode.
[tamgent]
Er...God didn't change his mind about Sodom and Gomorrah did he? In that he said he would destroy them....and did destroy them. Or have I got that wrong?
[/tangent]
 
Posted by Son of a Preacher Man (# 5460) on :
 
God did change his mind about Nineveh, though.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
Even though there are instances where God is presented in the Old Testament as if He changes His mind, the overall teachng is that He never does these things:
quote:
Numbers 23.19 "God is not a man, that He should lie, Nor a son of man, that He should repent. Has He said, and will He not do? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?"

I Samuel 15.29 “The Strength of Israel will not lie nor relent. For He is not a man, that He should relent."
While this is obviously inconsistent, it is no more inconsistent than a God of love who orders genocide.

The Bible is full of these kinds of inconsistencies.

The only way to reconcile them, that makes sense to me, is not to say that God changes, or that He changes His mind, but that His nature is revealed progressively to us in the Bible. Some aspects presented are according to the appearance, while others are more in accord with the way things really are.

God Himself never changes:
quote:
Psalm 102. Your years are throughout all generations. 25 Of old You laid the foundation of the earth, And the heavens are the work of Your hands. 26 They will perish, but You will endure; Yes, they will all grow old like a garment; Like a cloak You will change them, And they will be changed. 27 But You are the same, And Your years will have no end.
God does not change, but His nature is revealed in bits and pieces throughout the Bible, and the picture is not always a clear one. The image presented in the prophets, however, is generally clearer than the one presented in the earlier books. And in the New Testament it is clearer and more consistent still.

[ 19. July 2004, 14:58: Message edited by: Freddy ]
 
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
The image presented in the prophets, however, is generally clearer than the one presented in the earlier books. And in the New Testament it is clearer and more consistent still.
Which is strange, because God "changes his mind" in Jonah (prophet) whereas the quotes you have about him not changing his mind are from the law and the history books. [Razz]

To my mind, context is the key here. God presents his actions in different ways in different places to make a different point. IMO, there is an underlying truth about God's foresight that ties them together.
I'd go into it, but someone will accuse me of "squaring the circle" or some equally complimentary description if I do, and I think a record of my opinions on the whole thing is buried somewhere downstairs.
 
Posted by Cheesy* (# 3330) on :
 
Well...

Off the top of my head... Didn't God have a discussion/haggle with Abraham about how many people would be an acceptable number of good people that would prevent sodom's destruction?

Didn't God have compassion on Ninevah because they changed their ways?

Did not Jacob wrestle with God (what was that about again?)?

Doesn't God say somewhere 'Come let us reason together'? (sorry I don't do memory verses)

Doesn't God get angry with Job for asking stupid unanswerable questions, then look down and see a frightened lonely little man... then feel sorry for him?

After the golden calf incident, does not God say
'right I'm going to destroy the whole lot of you now' and does he not only get talked out of it by Moses?

Does not God keep repeatedly ask Israel and Judah to return to him, to come back, to be good. If he knows they wouldn't why does he bother?

Let us consider the alternative. If we do not believe that God changes his mind, then why do we bother praying for change? Is God heartless?

I think there is plenty of evidence of the Almighty changing his mind. Again I say, maybe the eye-for-an-eye and the destruction-of-enemies thing looked like a good idea at the time. Then God realised the long term effects and changed his mind.

C
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Which is strange, because God "changes his mind" in Jonah (prophet) whereas the quotes you have about him not changing his mind are from the law and the history books. [Razz]
That's why I said, "generally." Yes, context is the key. Still, it is an inconsistent picture - and that is the topic of this thread.
 
Posted by corpusdelicti (# 5124) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Cheesy*:
Someone explain what the problem is with the concept of God changing his mind....

C
As I said earlier the problem with God changing is that this requires a change in time, and so a temporal God, who cannot be an omnipotent God.

This, though, refers to changes in God's nature and his law, rather than to God "changing his mind". Thus it does not make sense, to me, that God could command genocide one time, and decry it later as this requires God to change his nature.

I find the idea of God changing his mind disturbing as it seems to anthropomorphise God; he becomes too human and indecisive and, again less than omnipotent and omnicognisant. Is this more our human means of understanding God rather than the true God?

In reply to Cheesy's examples:

quote:
Didn't God have a discussion/haggle with Abraham about how many people would be an acceptable number of good people that would prevent sodom's destruction?
Yes, but there was no change of mind: God saved all the worthy and destroyed the unworthy just as he said.

quote:
Didn't God have compassion on Ninevah because they changed their ways?
Yes, but the Ninevites changed, not God.

quote:
After the golden calf incident, does not God say
'right I'm going to destroy the whole lot of you now' and does he not only get talked out of it by Moses?
Ditto, Moses got the people to change.

quote:

Let us consider the alternative. If we do not believe that God changes his mind, then why do we bother praying for change? Is God heartless?
Do you pray for God to change? I thought we normally prayed for God to help US change.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by corpusdelicti:
I find the idea of God changing his mind disturbing as it seems to anthropomorphise God; he becomes too human and indecisive and, again less than omnipotent and omnicognisant. Is this more our human means of understanding God rather than the true God?
I think that this is exactly the point.

We anthropomorphise God - which is an inherently inacurate conception of Him.

However, if He was not anthropomorphised at all, we could have no conception at all of Him. So this is our dilemma. We of necessity have a picture of God that is not quite right, because a truly accurate picture is beyond our grasp.

What is so difficult about the idea that at some points in the Bible He is more anthropomorphised, and so less true to His actual nature, than at other points?

Also, I don't think this is necessarily just our human means of understanding Him at work. It is also that He presents Himself in ways that make sense to us in our limited understanding.

Such as that if we pray to Him He will change His mind and help us:
quote:
Originally posted by corpusdelicti:
Do you pray for God to change? I thought we normally prayed for God to help US change.
That's right. [Biased]

I think that an extension of this whole idea is the answer to Wood's question.
 
Posted by Cheesy* (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by corpusdelicti:
...Do you pray for God to change? I thought we normally prayed for God to help US change.
I pray for change and that the change start with me or include me.

corpusdelicti, thanks for your post, but I respectfully disagree with most of it. In all of the examples, it is God who changes his mind, not the people.

We (- ie my experience inside evangelical churches) are constantly told how we need to 'get right' with God and how sin separates us from him.

Now, I know that is a sideissue, and for the record, I believe our sinful nature makes God sad. But the biblical narrative, it seems to me, makes it perfectly clear that the exact opposite is true. God meets the sinful in their sinfulness. Before they have changed.

Let us take the Sodom example. It is a strange story, I'll admit. But the fact is that initially God was going to destroy the whole place and everything in it. Then abraham says 'but God if there are some good people, then that isn't very fair is it?'. And so on.

Abraham clearly hadn't been regularly attending Sunday School. Every Good Christian Knows
that you don't argue with God.

Similarly with the other examples. God says 'I'm rit pissed orf and I'm going to blast you off t'face of t'planet' and the people and/or a representative say 'oww please don't God, you nice big person you. We'll be good, promise...' And God says 'Oh alright then, I'll give you another chance I suppose. Make sure you're good until teatime.'


Freddy, what I think you are saying is that we create a God in our own image. We make him take on all our foibles and accept all the things we accept. Which is undoubtably true.

But in this case, we are left with several unpalatable options. First, God destroys whole tribes of people - leading to the horrific idea that he might ask us to do it too. Second, the bible is an inaccurate vessel for communication between us and God (note, no I don't mean inerrant and am not trying to exhume the dead horse). Personally, my problem with this idea is deciding that some of the bible cannot be trusted so we can ignore it. Which reinforces our own perception of the deity. The only third option that makes any sense is that God has changed his mind.

God can give and take away, God can exert exactly the correct restorative justice for crime, God can preserve his elect. But God cannot feel what it is like to be a man and to be on the wrong end of that kind of justice. God - somehow, bizarrely - needs to learn the lesson that humanity given the chance will bugger things up. He won't just go to the line of what is just, he will step over it.

So God says, ok guys forget that. Here's another idea..

C
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Cheesy*:
But in this case, we are left with several unpalatable options. First, God destroys whole tribes of people - leading to the horrific idea that he might ask us to do it too. Second, the bible is an inaccurate vessel for communication between us and God (note, no I don't mean inerrant and am not trying to exhume the dead horse). Personally, my problem with this idea is deciding that some of the bible cannot be trusted so we can ignore it. Which reinforces our own perception of the deity. The only third option that makes any sense is that God has changed his mind.
OK. I'm with you here. It's right to stay distant from reinforcing our own perception of the deity.

I don't say that parts of the Bible can't be trusted and can be ignored. Nor do I say that the Bible is an inaccurate vessel. I believe that the Bible is God talking, the inspired Word of God. My church, however, is all about interpreting biblical metaphors, so this works well for me.

So I understand that the third option is one that makes sense. I just find it doesn't make sense for me.
 
Posted by Esmeralda (# 582) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by corpusdelicti:
As I said earlier the problem with God changing is that this requires a change in time, and so a temporal God, who cannot be an omnipotent God.
Eer... I think you've just demolished the Incarnation there, Corpus.

As for the relevance of the 'Middle Eastern hyperbole' thing: 'it didn't happen' or 'it did but God didn't command it' are not the only alternatives. What I was thinking towards with my post was more on the lines of 'Yes, the Israelites on entering Canaan killed a lot of folks, but it wasn't half as many as the writer/compiler of Joshua said.' This enables us to accommodate Judges, and the fact that at least one of the peoples they failed to wipe out, are still around today.
What we're left with then, is
a) a people who killed when invading a territory. Well, people we know rather well still do that today (including killing civilians, women and children), and claim that they're on a mission from God. If we're going to criticise OT killings (which I personally would), let's be consistent and question the invasion of Iraq too (not to mention what the CIA did in Congo, Chile, Nicaragua etc over the past 40 years...).

b) a writer/s who wished that they killed more, and put that wish in the mouth of God. I have no problem in saying that writer had a very partial view of God. Some aspects of that view were right: eg thinking that the Jewish people had a better idea of God, and generally a better morality, than their surrounding pagan nations. Some aspects were not so right: eg thinking that the best way to preserve their unique culture and idea of God, was to wipe out the surrounding nations.
I don't have a problem with this because I worship Jesus - I don't worship the Bible. [Razz]
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Esmeralda:
quote:
Originally posted by corpusdelicti:
As I said earlier the problem with God changing is that this requires a change in time, and so a temporal God, who cannot be an omnipotent God.
Eer... I think you've just demolished the Incarnation there, Corpus.
I don't think the Incarnation means that God changed.

The change was only as to how He presented Himself to us. We are the temporal ones, not Him.

So He acts in time with regard to us, but He is not a temporal God.
 
Posted by Cheesy* (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Esmeralda:
quote:
Originally posted by corpusdelicti:
As I said earlier the problem with God changing is that this requires a change in time, and so a temporal God, who cannot be an omnipotent God.
Eer... I think you've just demolished the Incarnation there, Corpus.
I don't think the Incarnation means that God changed.

The change was only as to how He presented Himself to us. We are the temporal ones, not Him.

So He acts in time with regard to us, but He is not a temporal God.
This is, of course, a very good point. Maybe the God-outside-of-time option is one invented by the startrek generation Freddy....

C
 
Posted by J. J. Ramsey (# 1174) on :
 
A good question to ask is what makes us question the morality of the OT genocides in the first place. The "obvious" answer is that it is our modern Western values--but what shaped our Western values in the first place? Where did we even get the idea that God is Love? Christianity, of course. To a large extent, then, a reason we question the morality of one part of the Bible is because we affirm the morality of other parts. And the center of the latter morality is a Jesus who, as it has been pointed out several times, quite freely went "against the text".

It is worth noting that Esmeralda's and Father Gregory's takes on the matter predate the 20th century. I suspect that Father Gregory's take probably precedes the Enlightenment that arguably birthed what we recognize as Western values, though I'd rather that he confirm or disconfirm that himself. The idea that one has to be a professional theologian or biblical scholar or a "liberal" to go against the text is wrong. Conservatives can and do this as well.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Cheesy*:
Maybe the God-outside-of-time option is one invented by the startrek generation Freddy....
Heh-heh. But no.

God has been seen as omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent for a long time. It is an axiom of Christianity that we worship Him Who is and Who was and Who to come, the Almighty and Everlasting God.

These qualities demand an existence outside of time.
 
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Cheesy*:


Abraham clearly hadn't been regularly attending Sunday School. Every Good Christian Knows
that you don't argue with God.

C
Every Good Christian who has had the Psalms ripped out of their Bible apparently. [Disappointed]

Cheesy, where does this mangled neo-evangelical "theology" come from?

[ 19. July 2004, 21:55: Message edited by: Leprechaun ]
 
Posted by corpusdelicti (# 5124) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Cheesy

Let us take the Sodom example. It is a strange story, I'll admit. But the fact is that initially God was going to destroy the whole place and everything in it. Then abraham says 'but God if there are some good people, then that isn't very fair is it?'. And so on.
Perhaps you need to reread Genesis 18 as I have just done. God does not say he will destroy everyone. Abraham asks him if he will destroy the righteous with the wicked, and God says no. God saves the only righteous people there and then destroys the wicked (and isn't that a rather different view of God from the genocide orderer a few books later - no saving the righteous there).

So no change of mind there then.

quote:
Originally posted by Esmerelda:

Eer... I think you've just demolished the Incarnation there, Corpus.
Er, In the beginning was the Word... I said God's nature did not change, not that he can't work in different ways at different times.
 
Posted by Cheesy* (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:
Originally posted by Cheesy*:


Abraham clearly hadn't been regularly attending Sunday School. Every Good Christian Knows
that you don't argue with God.

C
Every Good Christian who has had the Psalms ripped out of their Bible apparently. [Disappointed]

Cheesy, where does this mangled neo-evangelical "theology" come from?
Ah-ha. Does that mean you agree with me, Lep [Biased]

C
 
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by corpusdelicti:
God saves the only righteous people there and then destroys the wicked (and isn't that a rather different view of God from the genocide orderer a few books later - no saving the righteous there).

No. Because, as you'll recall, that involved a grand total of 6 people IIRC, including one who is turned to a pillar of salt.
So not that different.

Cheesy - I don't agree that God changes his mind. But the nature of our relationship with him means we can (and must) question, argue, even rail at him sometimes. I cannot be doing with pious evangelical theology which uses the potter and clay analogy to mean we hide our struggles from God.
Anyway. Tangent.
 
Posted by Son of a Preacher Man (# 5460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by corpusdelicti:
Perhaps you need to reread Genesis 18 as I have just done. God does not say he will destroy everyone. Abraham asks him if he will destroy the righteous with the wicked, and God says no. God saves the only righteous people there and then destroys the wicked (and isn't that a rather different view of God from the genocide orderer a few books later - no saving the righteous there).

So no change of mind there then.
This is an interesting story. First God says he'll destroy the city, then Abraham gets him to say he won't destroy it (including all the wicked) if there are only 50 righteous people there. Then Abraham talks God down to 10 - he'll spare everybody if Abraham can find 10 righteous people. Of course, he can't. So maybe God never did change his mind - he knew there were not 10 righteous people there, and was just letting Abraham have his say so that he could think he could influence God?
 
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Son of a Preacher Man:
So maybe God never did change his mind - he knew there were not 10 righteous people there, and was just letting Abraham have his say so that he could think he could influence God?
Or perhaps God was making a point about the universal fallen-ness of mankind, and in fact the only ones who escape are linked to the covenant - thereby showing faith in God's promises as the only way to escape his judgement.

This thread is miles away from where it started. And I am beginning to feel like it is an obsession for me. So, once and for all I am done with it. It's really helped me think though - so thanks all.
 
Posted by Little Weed (# 4402) on :
 
Luigi,

A couple of points in reply a previous post of yours. I’ll respond to your post setting out your own views separately.

I said:
quote:
Joshua, read straight, has nationalistic value. Israel was constantly being lax and rebellious against the political-religious leadership of the time (there being no difference between politics and religion). It was a good message on both counts: if you obey God you will win battles; if you don’t, he will give you over to captivity.
To which you said:
quote:
I’m afraid I don’t buy this. This whole ‘if you’re a good guy you get rewarded and if you’re a bad guy you get punished’ doesn’t hold water. I’ll could just mention the holocaust or point to the number of faithful Christians who have not been protected by God throughout history.
But wasn’t that how they understood it? (I wasn’t suggesting that I understand it that way.) God gets fed up with Israel’s infidelity, whoops, they get given over to the Philistines for seven years because he’s changed his mind and he’s not going to protect them. It looks to me like interpretation after the event (as does the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah) but it’s still a good message for the tribe. If they have no explanation of natural events or lost battles it is going to cause dissent and disarray.

You said:
quote:
I think putting words in God’s mouth *is* invention. This deception is deeply problematic because it is so misleading.
Is it? I am quite happy to accept that Joshua believed that God had given him the message but did he hear whole paragraphs? If I write, “God gave me wonderful Christian parents” that wouldn’t, I hope, sound too odd to our ears. It’s the truth and not a lie but I don’t believe God looked at the potential me and selected parents who would produce me.

I’ve been delving into this question of “God said to X” and the closest to an explanation I can find is that it was taken for granted. Neither the existence of God nor the fact that God speaks in perfect biblical Hebrew to individuals is ever questioned in the OT. Isn’t it possible that they were more sophisticated and less literal than we might give them credit for? Did they really think that God was boxed up in the Ark of the Covenant or the Holy of Holies any more than we think God exists only in churches or wafers? I very much doubt it myself but I am open to any contrary evidence.
 
Posted by Little Weed (# 4402) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
Let’s consider how founding stories seemed to operate in the ancient world.

Many founding stories were stories told to tell of how the community emerged. And they seem to have been told to produce coherence within that community. Now many of the founding stories seem to be based on violence and disguising the role it had in producing peace and unanimity within the community. The role it appears to have had has been massive – the more I read in this area the more I was convinced.
I can see I will need to read Girard but I can accept that for the moment. I can see the ten commandments as having the underlying purpose of producing peace within the community and curbing violence.

quote:
Now just suppose that almost all the ideas that emerge from the OT are also present in other cultures. (We just happen to be more aware of the founding stories in the Judeo-Christian tradition.) The idea of a god (gods?) who will be on the side of those who worship him; a god who will give good harvests to those who bring animal sacrifices for him to consume, was just too attractive to the most of the ancients for them to ignore.
Yes. One maybe trivial-sounding comment I would add is about the importance of the sky to ancient peoples. When you live as we do with electric light and when for many of us most of the stars are too dim to compete with the reflected light of towns and cities it is difficult to appreciate just how awesome the movement of the sun, moon, stars and those totally unexpected phenomena that we now recognise as, for example, clouds consequent on volcanic eruptions (fire and brimstone) can be. You are at the constant mercy of the environment and need the most powerful god(s) on your side.

quote:
Of course when God, no matter what you call him, doesn’t always make your tribe the most powerful, the weather systems still seems to be alarmingly unpredictable no matter what your religious practices, then you have to up the ante and sacrifice children from your tribe, or the deformed, some of your enemies etc. Hence the reason for the incredibly widespread practice of human sacrifice in the ancient world.
Yes.

quote:
Just suppose that this sort of sacrificial logic was present in almost all ancient people – control of the Gods was an imperative for the vast majority of people groups. Therefore the practices and ritual s were almost always just variations on a theme. Of course if these practices troubled them in the same way they do us – and they had, I believe, consciences that potentially found these practices equally repugnant - then this would mean that the rituals would be questioned.

Therefore the role that these founding stories had to play was to hide the problematic parts of the story from the tribe. They had to be told in such a way that the barbaric practices that needed to become ritualised, had to be disguised or euphemised. They had to avoid troubling the conscience of the participants.
Yes, I’m beginning to see the force of this argument. First Abraham realises that God doesn’t want him to sacrifice his own child (ie doing away with all child sacrifice). Then the separation of the priests from the rest, the precise rituals, the shedding of blood which was that mysterious thing that equated to life, were all distanced from the people. (Bit like catholic practices today.) When I read Leviticus straight through earlier this year I was sickened by the depth of detail about the offerings that were to be made. Out of interest, I found several sites where the Tent had been recreated according to biblical instructions. This page is a useful starting point. My first reaction was: how small.

quote:
Now suppose that the OT is every bit as immersed in the same sacrificial logic and consequently the stories are in many ways almost identical. However, there is in my view one key difference and this difference means that certain things emerge from the OT scriptures that don’t emerge as clearly from other founding stories. (Incidentally, I don’t think it matters that much what they called their God, the question is how accurate was their perception of God.... Did their perception of God mean that love of God and love of neighbour were in opposition?)

So the OT tells much the same stories but the key difference is that the opposition between the two great commands becomes increasingly obvious because of the way in which these stories are told. Put simply this is how the leitmotif of the OT emerges – the debunking of sacrificial logic is its key theme.

Do you see what I am saying so far? I realise this is very sketchy and I haven’t even spoken of the role of founding murder stories but I think this will do to start with.
I think so, but there are too many ideas which I haven’t pulled together yet to be able to see the whole picture. They had a clear commandment, direct from God, that they were not to kill. That was in tension with their own natural inclinations to violence. Their own violence could only be legitimised by a further overriding instruction by God to kill their enemies. They placate God by making sacrifices in a ritualised way and a way that is in fact much more civilised than that carried out by surrounding tribes who still practice child sacrifice. They already have the idea of the scapegoat, which carries on into the NT. Sacrifical logical still prevails up to and including Jesus? Er, er … Too many loose ends and my head is still stuck in Joshua and the very early days whereas I think this makes more sense as you progress through the later prophets. I am interested to see you continue the argument when you have time and I'm open to correction on anything I've got wrong or misunderstood.
 
Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :
 
I'll try to respond to your specific points later little weed but for now perhaps I should add this just in case it isn't clear - after all some may be thinking that I am going off on a tangent. This thread being about the fact that God seemingly orders Israel to wipe out an entire people group. As JJ Ramsey says above it is something about Jesus and his teachings that undermine the view that there is no problem with this. How do you love a two year old as if they were your own and willingly slit her throat? I would have thought even some of the diehard conservatives - for want of a better term - would see the problem with this.

Violence served a three fold purpose in the ancient’s world - as far as I can tell.

1. To defend the tribe effectively, it was often perceived as the only possible solution - sadly.

However perhaps these two purposes were even more important:

2. To buy off God so that he sided with your tribe. This of course links with a very superstitious mindset - and in my view Christianity is the slow and very gradual debunking of this way of thinking. It walks away from a punitive understanding of God. It walks away from a superstitious understanding of God. It walks away from a violence endorsing view of God but it does so very gradually and very imperfectly. Three steps forward, two steps back.

3. To produce peace and unity within a tribe. Is any mob more united than when it stones someone and in the immediate aftermath? This does not in my view justify the violence.

Now my point, as I think you are starting to realise, is that the stories that nourished these violent practices, and the rituals that prepared for these acts, had to disguise the problem to their consciences.

Girard's point is that the writers of the Bible were uniquely poor writers of myth, if the purpose of myth is to hide the problem - the writers of the Bible were really not very good at it. Because the voice of the victim emerges from the text and that should never happen for the myth to work effectively.

You must metaphorically hide the eyes of the victim so that you cannot see his humanity – his value, his being made in the image of God. You must drown out the cries of the victim both in the ritual and in your story telling. The Vikings drummed their shields to drown out the cries of the girls who were sacrificed when the chief of the tribe died!

My point is that even the more liberal posters to this site want to justify the genocide in some way. ‘Well at least there were some good messages that you can get out of it.’ Or ‘perhaps a full blown genocide didn't take place.’ Ironically holocaust apologists seem to go for 'the Jews deserved it' or 'it probably didn't happen to the same degree as is being claimed' also. Put simply even the liberals are trying to lessen the impact. My view is…. let the text scream at us in all its appalling barbarity. Because if we don’t let it do this, we fail to realise the potency of these stories.

The genocide is wrong and it shouldn’t to be explained away. Perhaps the reason why the pre-exilic prophets were so much more compassionate in their take on God, is because the text, whilst appallingly negative, pushed them in the right direction. In fact maybe it was the fact that it was so wrong, was what produced the forward momentum in the OT. ‘Whatever you do to the least of these you do to me.’

You will find many examples of violence ordained by God AND violence committed by God in many, many ancient texts. I presume that few Christians would believe that God lights the flame in the Hindu ritual of Suttee. Of course both examples of violence are human violence that has been sacralized IMO.

So to summarise much of the OT is the most repugnant text imaginable. And it is because it is so repugnant we need to hear that text, we need in our canon because to see the appalling abyss of human violence. I disagree with virtually every word that is written in Leviticus and yet it is one of the most important books in the Bible.


Incidentally you are spot on about Leviticus, quite obviously the high point of sacrificial logic in the OT and of course Hebrews is the high point of sacrificial logic in the NT. In the gospels there is very little sacrificial logic indeed there is quite a lot of debunking of sacrificial logic. As far as I can see there is only one verse in Matthew that is really a problem to this way of thinking, in all the synoptic gospels.

Luigi
PS (There is a great deal of the OT text I would go against. I don’t buy the idea that God as happy for dissatisfied husbands to demand the stoning of their wife just because they had no evidence of their virginity. I don’t buy the idea that God wanted people who pick up stick on a Saturday to be stoned. I don’t buy the idea that if a woman who was menstruating was comforted by their husband, then he had to sacrifice an animal – you can imagine how women who had trouble with their periods would have been marginalised. So the idea of going against the text cannot be just done at our convenience we need a leitmotif and the above is the only leitmotif that gets close to dealing with all the different problems that arise from the Biblical text – without throwing it out.)
 
Posted by J. J. Ramsey (# 1174) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:

Girard's point is that the writers of the Bible were uniquely poor writers of myth, if the purpose of myth is to hide the problem - the writers of the Bible were really not very good at it. Because the voice of the victim emerges from the text and that should never happen for the myth to work effectively.

You must metaphorically hide the eyes of the victim so that you cannot see his humanity – his value, his being made in the image of God. You must drown out the cries of the victim both in the ritual and in your story telling. The Vikings drummed their shields to drown out the cries of the girls who were sacrificed when the chief of the tribe died!

My point is that even the more liberal posters to this site want to justify the genocide in some way. ‘Well at least there were some good messages that you can get out of it.’ Or ‘perhaps a full blown genocide didn't take place.’ Ironically holocaust apologists seem to go for 'the Jews deserved it' or 'it probably didn't happen to the same degree as is being claimed' also. Put simply even the liberals are trying to lessen the impact. My view is…. let the text scream at us in all its appalling barbarity. Because if we don’t let it do this, we fail to realise the potency of these stories.

The genocide is wrong and it shouldn’t to be explained away. Perhaps the reason why the pre-exilic prophets were so much more compassionate in their take on God, is because the text, whilst appallingly negative, pushed them in the right direction. In fact maybe it was the fact that it was so wrong, was what produced the forward momentum in the OT. ‘Whatever you do to the least of these you do to me.’
You know, I think that you just went "against the text" in a very Christian fashion.

A thought: Maybe it was God's allowance of our free will that allowed the stories of genocide to be there in the first place, but His inspiration that caused them to be so poor at shielding the voice of the victim?
 
Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :
 
Just a quick comment on revelation - Little Weed. Did God reveal himself specially to Israel or not?

My take is those who got God right, saw what could have always been seen. You don't need someone to think they have had a prophecy from God before you come to the conclusion that killing is wrong.

When I think of how many people have believed wrongly that they have heard from God and then I think about how God may have been speaking to us since the beginning of human history though the lips of the victimised, the voices of the marginalised etc. I come to the conclusion that all humanity has heard God speaking at his/her most powerful. You see God has always revealed himself to all cultures, humanity's problem is that we have been deaf, or more accurately we have sought to silence that voice.

So the Bible being God's word is not about God telling the Israelites what he wants / requires and leaving the rest of humanity in the dark. It is the story of a voice emerging that has been there in all cultures since the beginning of time.

I believe the Bible is inspired more on the level of which books have been included in the canon. I don’t believe that the exact words attributed to God by writers, as being God's words, are his words even when it clearly says thus says the Lord.

Hope the picture is becoming clearer.

Luigi
If I understand you correctly JJ Ramsey - then I agree with you

[ 20. July 2004, 22:47: Message edited by: Luigi ]
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
We're all just too nice and protected and civilized and incredibly ignorant and unimaginative whilst projecting our niceness back 3500 years.

Ancient man was barbaric, depraved, brutal, obscene beyond belief. Bosnia. Rwanda. Auschwitz. Nanking. Jim Jones. Manson. Bundy. Gacey. All of our remote, media nightmares were the NORM. Were everyday experience for everybody. Not just marginalized, remote victims.

One in thirty people is a psychopath. 3%. If there is a genetic component they have been selected for their survival value ... The Vikings have been mentioned. Pagan monsters. Devil worshippers. Psychopaths were rewarded. Berserkers bred.

(Anyone here read "Luther Blisset's" Q? It's enough to make one Catholic. Was the Reformation worth it?)

As is very well documented. Historically, not just Biblically. The Cambridge Ancient History even loses it when talking about the cruelty of the Assyrians. We are so very modern. So very out of touch. So recently and so contemporarily: Darfur.

God. Man. Serpent. Here we are. All. Still. All of the religions of the period were the worship of demons ewpowered by the depraved 'mysteries' (read what the Greeks got up to in their Eleusinian rites anyone?). Up until the fall of Rome and then some. Human-Satanic synergy.

How frightfully unmodern!

If it all "ain't necessarily so", then, but for the Incarnation, God is man now trying to communicate with his own externally idealized meaningless self. Our internal existential weather, to paraphrase Russell.

The Incarnation is so persuasive by its outrageousness that it's the only thing we agree on. Which I suppose makes us Christians!

Without the Incarnation rationalism as brilliantly and seductively expounded above, by Freddy (who is of course utterly illogical about the aorist God requiring timelessness), lincz, Luigi, Wood, Little Weed, Seeker963 (I do feel the edge of your pain and I am sorry, but Heaven is not Hell: as Freddy understood), Esmerelda (SHEMA!), et al is Dawkins' Hammadryad worship.

Without the Incarnation we follow Voltaire and in then face of meaninglessness invent God with no justification but our meaningless, evolutionarily contingent dispositions. All we have to do is evolve 'more' and we won't need what we don't have.

And if it is so, God scythes - minimally, barely, rarely, lightly - through massive, terminally toxic, contagious, depraved, insane, sick, Satanic, i.e. Satanically led, inspired, fed, organized, possessed opposition to ensure His incarnation for their salvation.

But hey, 'I' could be wrong. As long as we all agree about the Incarnation. 'I' could even be wrong about God being in process. And all you nice, clever, young, so very young, rose tinted liberals could be absolutely right. The old bastards too.

But then we'd STILL be left with a very odd, Zen, evolution God who just doesn't give a mystical bowel movement about pain and suffering.

Which is unfair on Him, so you could be right, after all He is omnipathic and He did incarnate for 33 years. The creation has been in agony for half a billion plus. But OK.

But what is the pain for? The agony? The unremitting, endless, meaningless suffering of a nice, liberal, rationalist God's creation?

Of course all of the revolting pain and evil and vileness is OUR fault? For there is no Devil. Evolutionarily necessary?! The outworking of free will? FOR GOD'S SAKE?!

I'd like an answer please. I really would.
That is any where as credible, as real, as perfect, as pure, as righteous, as gracious, as the God of the the Bible.

Or is it elitist, esoteric intellectualism and I couldn't possibly understand? Or I lack ahimsa-love?
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
I believe the Bible is inspired more on the level of which books have been included in the canon. I don’t believe that the exact words attributed to God by writers, as being God's words, are his words even when it clearly says thus says the Lord.
So, after criticizing all my talk about metaphor, here you are basically saying what I was saying all along. [Disappointed]

I agree, if you mean what I think you mean.

What does "inspired more on the level of which books have been included in the canon" mean? I would assume that it means that God inspired the acceptance, preservation and distribution of the books that contained His message. That's what I think too.

Whereas I agree that what Moses heard from the mouth of Jehovah was not necessarily really from Jehovah Himself. It was, as my denomination understands it, a message accommodated to Moses and those who would read what he wrote.

Yet it is inspired on the level of canon, because these stories contain what God wishes us to know.

My denomination would say that the message is held symbolically in what Moses wrote - but I know that this is not what Luigi is saying.

Still, I agree that revelation is, or was, much more universal than Christians tend to believe.

The Philistines and Egyptians received messages from their deities much as Israel did. They did not just make them up, there really were messages happening. But their "gods" were evil spirits, with nothing like the power that Moses' Jehovah wielded.

This accounts, I think, for the apparent contradictions in the biblical record. It especially accounts for God's seeming commands to commit genocide, when the truth is that this could never really happen. And yet the record is still holy and inspired by God for a good purpose. [Angel]
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
But what is the pain for? The agony? The unremitting, endless, meaningless suffering of a nice, liberal, rationalist God's creation?
Of course all of the revolting pain and evil and vileness is OUR fault? For there is no Devil. Evolutionarily necessary?! The outworking of free will? FOR GOD'S SAKE?!
I'd like an answer please.
I think the key is that natural things, by their very nature, are opposed to spiritual ones. [Angel]

Evolution therefore demands pain, because this is implicit in the concept of competition for survival. [Tear]

Or, to put it another way, if there was no imperative to self-preservation, then what would be the point of unselfish love?

The pain is our fault only in the sense that the alternative is always available to us. But as long as we remain natural beings, focused on a material world, pain is always an essential part of the picture.

This is one reason why God is presented as He is in these biblical stories. We are materialistic, and we can only comprehend a God who carries some of these same features. So pain and agony are part of the story. [Frown]
 
Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :
 
Freddy - I still don't think we are saying the same things unless you mean something very different by the word metaphor. When I read your posts - often more than once - I frequently felt you were heading in the right direction, and made some very useful points, only for you to suddenly dart off in a direction that undermined the clarity of what you had previously said. I feel the same about the above post.

The stories don't have metaphorical value their value is that when we don't disguise these stories with labels like metaphor they actually start to have a profoundly destablising effect.

All this superstitious stuff about them hearing a (false) God's voice and confusing it for God. No wonder the poor people were confused. The reason you seem to be implying that they should have not done what they did is because they should have listened to the right God. I am saying that I trust the voice of the victim, more than I trust some space head who claims that God told them.

Little Weed - sorry forgot to include in the stuff about Christianity being the religion that seeks to escape superstitious understandings of God, it is also the faith trying to escape tribal / nationalistic views of God.

Finally - could someone translate what Martin is saying for me. It is not a form of English I am familiar with.

Luigi
 
Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :
 
Martin PC Not: Ever come across a book called - dig the title! - Postemotional Society by Stjepan G. Mestrovic? His thesis is that the cardinal postmodern virtue is niceness. He also says that we have become a society that's emotionally dead, able to feel only "recycled emotions". In other words, what Disney and Macdonalds tell us to feel. That's why, he says, we are sold "Happy Meals", an emotional package without refrerence to food-content. And he calls Bill Clinton a "Barney and Friends President" because it's OK to bomb the crap out of bridges in Belgrade, but to put troops on the ground and get them coming home in bodybags is not "nice". Likewise, Milosevic was "nice" - sophisticates, sentimental, enjoyed a Scotch - whereas Izetbegovic was "prickly", and not nice.

I think there's a polemical edge to what he's saying, which over-eggs it a bit - I'd be intrigued to see how he critiques the Bush presidency, though again it should be easily done on the basis of the 'recycled emotions' he (and Tony Blair) stir up.
 
Posted by Little Weed (# 4402) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
Just a quick comment on revelation - Little Weed. Did God reveal himself specially to Israel or not?
The Sunday School child in me says of course he did. The young adult says, “Something wrong here and I don’t know what. I’ll concentrate on the gospels.” The older adult comes back to the OT and says, “Weed, you’ve got to go with your understanding of God revealed through Jesus and these bits aren’t God speaking. It’s wrong. So sue me.” The even older adult is led to Girard and says, “Ah ha. I think we definitely have something here.”

quote:
My take is those who got God right, saw what could have always been seen. You don't need someone to think they have had a prophecy from God before you come to the conclusion that killing is wrong.

When I think of how many people have believed wrongly that they have heard from God and then I think about how God may have been speaking to us since the beginning of human history though the lips of the victimised, the voices of the marginalised etc. I come to the conclusion that all humanity has heard God speaking at his/her most powerful. You see God has always revealed himself to all cultures, humanity's problem is that we have been deaf, or more accurately we have sought to silence that voice.
Yes, I am beginning to see that now. One of the problems, I think, is hearing the voice of the victim in the early prophets such as Joshua because it is so gung-ho and perhaps there are clearer places to start. I like the view in your last sentence which instinct tells me is right but I have found difficult to justify before. For me God’s message has to be the same throughout time and outside time, which is why I find the “changing his mind” or “trying a new approach” so unsatisfactory.

I am also deeply convinced that the revelation in Jesus makes sense of the world as we see it and I don’t think it’s a coincidence that most non-Christians I meet are happy to accept that he was a truly good man. Indeed, many passionate atheists I know actually follow his teaching in practice much more faithfully than many Christians.

Besides thinking about your previous post, I have also just read two articles from the link Psyduck gave a while ago. (Having started the day by reading Martin PC Not's post I decided they couldn't be much more difficult.) The main page is Girard Links. The first article I read (chosen simply for the title) is Reading Rene Girard's and Walter Wink's Religious Critiques of Violence as Radical Communication Ethics, particularly the second half of the article. The second article is Are the Gospels Mythical? which I found very helpful indeed.

quote:
So the Bible being God's word is not about God telling the Israelites what he wants / requires and leaving the rest of humanity in the dark. It is the story of a voice emerging that has been there in all cultures since the beginning of time.

I believe the Bible is inspired more on the level of which books have been included in the canon. I don’t believe that the exact words attributed to God by writers, as being God's words, are his words even when it clearly says thus says the Lord.

Hope the picture is becoming clearer.
I remain cautious but I can see how it’s a very productive perspective.

Must read more!
 
Posted by Esmeralda (# 582) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
But what is the pain for? The agony? The unremitting, endless, meaningless suffering of a nice, liberal, rationalist God's creation?

Of course all of the revolting pain and evil and vileness is OUR fault? For there is no Devil. Evolutionarily necessary?! The outworking of free will? FOR GOD'S SAKE?!

I'd like an answer please. I really would.
Martin, I don't always understand what you're talking about but I admire the passion with which you say it. And the depth with which you feel the suffering of the world.
I don't know if you're attributing the sentiment 'There is no Devil' to me, but I believe strongly that there is. And my Christadelphian in-laws, who are much more conservative than me, don't believe in a Devil. So liberalism does not necessarily = no Devil. Anyway, I don't see myself as a liberal theologically; I'm an Anabaptist, which is pre- not post-evangelical.

The suffering, the pain, the agony are there because human beings are fallible, and because there are spiritual powers of evil at work in the world (in that respect, Freddy is right). God allows this because the alternative would have no room for genuine love. Compulsory goodness is not goodness; compulsory love is not love.

PS. Oh, and thank you if you were including me among the people who were 'so naive and trusting and so young '. I'm 51. Bet you're younger than that. [Razz]
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
All this superstitious stuff about them hearing a (false) God's voice and confusing it for God. No wonder the poor people were confused. The reason you seem to be implying that they should have not done what they did is because they should have listened to the right God. I am saying that I trust the voice of the victim, more than I trust some space head who claims that God told them.
If I understand you correctly, you are saying that there is no such thing as the kind of divine revelation described in the Bible.

"Superstitious stuff"? "Space head"?

But I'm not saying that they should have listened to the right God. I'm saying that God appeared to them in a way that they could accept and follow. You appear to be saying, not that the one who appeared to them was not God Himself, but that no one actually appeared to them - that divine revelation is actually a more subtle and universal thing.

I would say that this is the easy and obvious way out of Wood's dilemma.

quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
The stories don't have metaphorical value their value is that when we don't disguise these stories with labels like metaphor they actually start to have a profoundly destablising effect.
Then I'm wondering what you meant when you said that they were inspired on the level of what books were included in the canon. I thought that you were saying that although they may not have been literally accurate, they nevertheless carried God's message.

Maybe we do mean different things by metaphor. I understand the term to mean that a story or a saying has a meaning beyond what is in its literal words. It also means that although a story or saying may not be literally true, its message may nevertheless be true and applicable. If I say that we "have a long row to hoe", none of us is likely to point out that we have no hoes and there is no row. Everyone understands the metaphor and symbolism inlvolved.

As far as I am concerned, Israel's struggles are a metaphor for our spiritual struggles, and, in a sense, God's struggles with evil in this world.

If this is not what they are about, then what do you mean by their inclusion in the canon being inspired by God?
 
Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :
 
Little Weed - don't know where to go next.

Do you want a really good example of poor myth making in the OT?

Do you want me to point to the greatest 4 verses in the OT which deconstruct sacrificial thinking?

Do you want to explain how violence is sacralised in, for example, the case of the Hindu ritual of Suttee (easiest to see example because it is so recent 2002)?

Or do you have one of your own questions to ask?

Luigi
 
Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :
 
If you are still out there Martin. Are you still saying that you still have no problem with God demanding that they annihilate the Amalakites?

Do you believe that it is unproblematic to assert that we should love our neighbour as ourself and we should be willing to slit their 2 year old daughter's throat?

You keep saying that you no longer believe that God asks us to do this - though you have never explained why? Was genocide off God's agenda when Jesus was born? Was it suddenly wrong to wipe out entire people groups on Good Friday? Or was it Easter Sunday when all genocidal adts should suddenly stop?

To my mind this is just an attempt to ignore the moral problems by removing it far away from us in time, so that it rather conveniently becomes something that you believe could no longer apply?

All your posts about how God can commit genocidal acts is irrelevant. After all it wasn't about those passages where God, or the angel of death, appears to have lashed out unfairly and indiscriminately, that we were talking about. It was those times when God supposedly told people to do the act. Perhaps he was so tired he couldn't do it himself. Or perhaps I should say that he couldn't arrange to do what happened in Kings 19 himself!

It is the problem that God was telling humans to take so many 'innocent' lives for no consistent reason that there is a problem. Expecially in the light of how in other places he seems to insist that taking other humans lives is wrong in many, many circumstances.

Luigi

[ 21. July 2004, 22:38: Message edited by: Luigi ]
 
Posted by J. J. Ramsey (# 1174) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
Little Weed - don't know where to go next.

Do you want a really good example of poor myth making in the OT?

Do you want me to point to the greatest 4 verses in the OT which deconstruct sacrificial thinking?

Do you want to explain how violence is sacralised in, for example, the case of the Hindu ritual of Suttee (easiest to see example because it is so recent 2002)?
Don't know about Little Weed, but my answers are yes, yes, and yes.
 
Posted by Little Weed (# 4402) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by J. J. Ramsey:
quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
Little Weed - don't know where to go next.

Do you want a really good example of poor myth making in the OT?

Do you want me to point to the greatest 4 verses in the OT which deconstruct sacrificial thinking?

Do you want to explain how violence is sacralised in, for example, the case of the Hindu ritual of Suttee (easiest to see example because it is so recent 2002)?
Don't know about Little Weed, but my answers are yes, yes, and yes.
All of the above, please! Thinking about this yesterday I began to see how all sorts of things could fall into place and for the first time I felt some optimism instead of being depressed and upset by this thread.

I don't want to lose the momentum of the argument but on the other hand I wonder whether it wouldn't be better to start a new thread at this point?

I'll pass the buck back to Wood to decide.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
Esmeralda, you wrote
quote:
Oh, and thank you if you were including me among the people who were 'so naive and trusting and so young '. I'm 51.
Ah, 1953, such a fine vintage!! [Biased]
 
Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :
 
Little Weed and JJ - will post an example of poor myth making later today.

Don't really know how this forum works so have no idea whether it would be a good idea to start a new thread or not.

It seems to me that I owe Freddy a response and I was thinking of posting something on why Jesus' teaching and OT genocide are so difficult to harmonise. It has been referred to a number of times but hasn't really been explained fully - or at least not that I can remember.

(On the question of harmonising the text - I dare say the middle bit in 'day in the life' by the Beatles could be called harmony, but the truth is it ain't harmony, it is intentional dischord.)

I've also been frustrated by the fact that large amounts of this thread have defended OT genocide as if committed by God, which is a very different question to why God demanded that the Israelites do the killing for him - Wood's initial question. (As I suggested in my above post to Martin.)

Indeed defending the fact that God can kill who he wants to just highlights the problem with God commanding humans to do it. I would have thought this was especially problematic for those who are still in that evangelical received text mindset.

Will post later

Take care

Luigi
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
It seems to me that I owe Freddy a response and I was thinking of posting something on why Jesus' teaching and OT genocide are so difficult to harmonise.
Not sure how that relates to what I was saying. But thank you anyway.

My comment on that topic, however, is that Jesus' teachings and OT genocide are complete opposites, with no harmony whatever. The only harmony between them is a symbolic one. That is, the OT genocide symbolizes putting an end to evil and replacing it with good, whereas Jesus' teaching actually IS or IS ABOUT putting an end to evil and replacing it with good.

quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
Indeed defending the fact that God can kill who he wants to just highlights the problem with God commanding humans to do it. I would have thought this was especially problematic for those who are still in that evangelical received text mindset.
I completely agree.

Thanks for your contributions, Luigi. They are most interesting.

I have really enjoyed this thread. Little Weed, Leprechaun and others I have very much appreciated your points. I need to bow out of the discussion at this point because I am going on a little trip. [Yipee]

[ 22. July 2004, 09:40: Message edited by: Freddy ]
 
Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :
 
Perhaps I could have some guidance from Wood here. I think there is some unfinished business on this thread - e.g. the issue of just why some of us perceive a problem with affirming the rightness of OT genocide and following Jesus' teachings has been mentioned but not really explored – it remains to be seen if any want to read anymore on this.

There is also the sub-issue of how much God has revealed himself to all people groups since the beginning of human history. Which I will probably post on later to Freddy.

However JJ Ramsey and Little Weed (at least - possibly more) would like to know more about sacralized violence - why and how violence is made sacred and the sacred is made violent. This would also mean exploring how sacrificial logic is debunked in the OT well before we get to Jesus. Another unexplored theme is how the writers of the Hebrew Scriptures were such poor writers of myth i.e. they disguised the problematic aspects of their stories of violence very poorly. (Put simply... it would be good to explore some Girardian thinking - especially now Psyduck is back.)

So what should I do? Let this thread deal with the most directly related issues and start a new thread on sacralized violence. In which case I may need to copy at least a couple of posts from the past page so that those coming to a new thread have some sort of understanding of what we are going on about.

Wood what do you think? Is this thread evolving into this closely related subject quite happily? Or what.....?

Luigi
PS if there are any others still reading it would be good to hear from you.

[ 22. July 2004, 18:24: Message edited by: Luigi ]
 
Posted by Esmeralda (# 582) on :
 
Hi - still reading, but thinking I don't have much to contribute, until I've gone and read Girard! I do think there's another related issue here, however, which is what value God places on the individual.I have addressed this, though perhaps not directly enough, in starting the thread 'Does God like us?'.

And a third related issue is the whole question of original sin, which has come up obliquely here, and is being explored on another thread on this board. In particular, are we all, unless we've consciously assented to Christ, automatically under the wrath of God and deserving of death? I don't think this is the only way of reading the Scriptures, such as Romans; but it is a piece of evangelical orthodoxy that it's dangerous to question.. [Paranoid]
 
Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :
 
Well Esmerelda - does what has been said so far make sense to you? I would have thought you'd be pretty sympathetic to his thinking.

Luigi
 
Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :
 
Little Weed, JJ and Esmerelda sorry for the delay will answer your question soon - lost first post on computer [Roll Eyes]

Meanwhile this is what I wrote earlier in response to Freddy.

Freddy - don't know how long your trip but here’s my response anyway.
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
It seems to me that I owe Freddy a response and I was thinking of posting something on why Jesus' teaching and OT genocide are so difficult to harmonise.
Not sure how that relates to what I was saying. But thank you anyway.
Actually the two were unrelated I wanted to do both things. The second wasn’t really a response to you but others on this thread.

However, wanted to say something on the subject of the ancients hearing from God.
quote:

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that there is no such thing as the kind of divine revelation described in the Bible.

"Superstitious stuff"? "Space head"?

But I'm not saying that they should have listened to the right God. I'm saying that God appeared to them in a way that they could accept and follow. You appear to be saying, not that the one who appeared to them was not God Himself, but that no one actually appeared to them - that divine revelation is actually a more subtle and universal thing.
First I don’t believe that God appeared to them in a way that they could 'accept and follow'. This whole idea that God told the Israelites that they were to annihilate an entire people group because they would accept it and follow it is unsustainable from my point of view. Surely you can see the problem with this POV.

I don’t particularly want to come across as cynical and I fully accept that God can speak to humans through their inner voices, dreams, prophecy etc. However, it seems to me, that humans have been hearing voices since the beginning of (human) time. Humans have believed they have heard from God and I think more often than not this has been an act of self-deception. I think this is true no matter what you believe – few Christians would say that every human being who claims they have heard from God actually did – many would be unconvinced by Joseph Smith’s, Muhammad’s, claims.

My point is, how do humans know when they have heard from God? Some Christians may ask: is it in line with the Bible? Or some others might ask: is it in line with Jesus? Or even: is it in line with my tradition? My point is that the ancients had no way of doing either. So the whole idea that revelation is discernable through someone claiming that they have heard from God is not that useful. My point is that even when you think you have heard from God, how do you know it isn’t just self-deception? My argument is that the most reliable voice throughout history has been the victim. If we are to avoid setting the two most important commands in violation of each other, we need to listen to the victim.

Is this clearer?

Luigi
 
Posted by Custard123 (# 5402) on :
 
Back after some time off. Apologies to backtracking a few posts - I thought I sohuld try dealing with the whole mind-changing thing.

I think part of the problem is that we tend to treat God's statements in a very propositional way. I'll try and explain, but in my current jetlagged state will probably make very little sense.

There is a stanrdard distinction in evangelical throelogy between God's sovereign will and his revealed will.

A lot of God's statements, particularly those concerning destruction, are operating in a way parallel to the revealed will rather than the sovereign will. This can be seen in Jeremiah 18

quote:

5 Then the word of the LORD came to me: 6 "O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter does?" declares the LORD . "Like clay in the hand of the potter, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel. 7 If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, 8 and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned. 9 And if at another time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be built up and planted, 10 and if it does evil in my sight and does not obey me, then I will reconsider the good I had intended to do for it.

 
Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :
 
Custard123: Kudos for doing theology while jetlagged!
quote:
I think part of the problem is that we tend to treat God's statements in a very propositional way.
Yes, but isn't that inevitable if you have taken the prior decision to understand these as God's statements, and also to understand revelaton as God making statements?
quote:
There is a stanrdard distinction in evangelical throelogy between God's sovereign will and his revealed will... A lot of God's statements, particularly those concerning destruction, are operating in a way parallel to the revealed will rather than the sovereign will.
I really think you're going to have to unpack this a bit for us - when jetlag permits! I'm particularly worried by the suggestion that God's revealed will is somehow different from his sovereign will, as though God isn't levelling with us, or is thinking one thing and saying another.
 
Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :
 
Sorry to double post - I should have added that I googled for "sovereign will" and "revealed will" - and got, among other stuff, this. But I must confess that I still couldn't quite follow your point here.
 
Posted by Custard123 (# 5402) on :
 
OK - as my body now thinks it is the afternoon, I can try to reply with slightly (but only slightly) more clarity (couldn't sleep).

God is being honest with us, if we understand his statements correctly.

Here's an example of revealed and sovereign will.

God's revealed will is that people should not betray the innocent. That is what he tells people to do.

However, his sovereign will was that Judas should do exactly that to Jesus. That does not mean that Judas' action was right, but nor does it mean that it was outside God's plan.

So what were the purposes of God's statements that betraying the innocent is wrong? To show his people how they should act for their own benefit and to convict the guilty.

What I was trying to say is that Jeremiah suggests that some of God's statements that don't look like moral commands actually fall into the same category.

So when God says he will judge a nation, that statement is essentially a threat, designed to provoke a response in the hearers.

Of course, as we see in Jeremiah 18 (and Jonah, etc), it is quite possible that the people will respond to the threat in repentance and the judgement will not come. That does not mean that God's initial statement is untrue, merely that it is a statement designed to provoke a response and so bring about God's sovereign will rather than a statement designed to reveal God's sovereign will for the future.

Alternatively, you could see Je 18 as adding an "unless you repent" clause to all God's threats of judgement.
 
Posted by Zeke (# 3271) on :
 
It's a little hard for me to accept that God is always trying to manipulate us by making lots of possibly idle threats. That seems kind of petty(not to mention dishonest), and I would not respect a human being who did it. Perhaps I am not seeing it the right way?

Okay, it's late at night for me. I just looked at it again. Do you just assume an "unless you do this, I'll do that" every time?

[ 25. July 2004, 06:33: Message edited by: Zeke ]
 
Posted by sanc (# 6355) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zeke:
It's a little hard for me to accept that God is always trying to manipulate us by making lots of possibly idle threats. That seems kind of petty(not to mention dishonest), and I would not respect a human being who did it. Perhaps I am not seeing it the right way?

Okay, it's late at night for me. I just looked at it again. Do you just assume an "unless you do this, I'll do that" every time?
if left to our own devices humanity will have fend for himself against the result of sin and its consequences. one way of looking at the threat scenario is to understand that if GOD were to completely let loose of HIS control on nature or satan, we will be completely on the mercy of the dark power, which it has none. one example to that is in the experience of job. for us to have a brighter picture of the suffering and ruin present in this world is to view it from the vantage point of the great controversy between good and evil.

GOD's threat may come about as a direct effect of GOD letting go of HIS control. "for in HIM everything consist." the chaos we see are the manifestations of HIS doing so. then why, we ask is HE letting go? the answer is our sins made HIM to. we alienate ourselves making him powerless to save us. thats freewill, HE can't go around it. its our choice.

when we see passages that may sometimes point to GOD as the prime cause, it may also mean that GOD loose some of HIS control. so the threat will surely come to pass because you have spurned his authority over you. who wants to be the next job? spare me GOD, pls!
 
Posted by Custard123 (# 5402) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zeke:
It's a little hard for me to accept that God is always trying to manipulate us by making lots of possibly idle threats. That seems kind of petty(not to mention dishonest), and I would not respect a human being who did it. Perhaps I am not seeing it the right way?

Okay, it's late at night for me. I just looked at it again. Do you just assume an "unless you do this, I'll do that" every time?
Um... (my brain now makes it very early morning..)

Lots - no.
Petty - no.
Idle - no. A threat is only idle if you wouldn't carry it out anyway.

Do I assume an "unless you repent" clause every time God threatens judgement? Yes.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
Have been on holiday for 2 weeks so please forgive the jumping back in from several pages back.

I think that, yet again, we are witnessing (as we did on Sharkshooter's "What if I'm right?" thread) the apparent contradiction between OT and NT, and the apparent contradiction between "Jesus the Word/ supreme revelation of God" and "The Bible the Word/ supreme revelation of God" positions. I say 'apparent', because the difficulty for those who assert that there is such a contradiction is that Jesus Himself drew no such distinction. On the contrary, time and again in the Gospel narratives He refers to and quotes from the OT as being authoritative; the apostles do likewise in the later NT.

The question therefore for those who would seek to propound this dichotomy by putting forward Jesus as the supreme revelation of God and consequently requiring the OT to be interpreted against that revelation and, where necessary, be rejected or at least reduced to mere metaphor where it allegedly conflicts with their picture of Jesus is: why do you do this, when neither Jesus nor the later NT writers drew that distinction; if Jesus and the apostles were able to view the OT as authoritative, literal and revelatory, on what basis and authority do you seek to adopt a contrary position?

Yours in Christ

Matt
 
Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :
 
Matt - I wanted to know. Do you practice your religion as an orthodox Jew?

Luigi
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
Matt, you wrote:
quote:
The question therefore for those who would seek to propound this dichotomy by putting forward Jesus as the supreme revelation of God and consequently requiring the OT to be interpreted against that revelation and, where necessary, be rejected or at least reduced to mere metaphor where it allegedly conflicts with their picture of Jesus is: why do you do this
A) Because the doctrine of progressive revelation is indeed a scriptural one ("It is said...but I tell you", "In the past...but in these last days")

and
quote:
if Jesus and the apostles were able to view the OT as authoritative, literal and revelatory, on what basis and authority do you seek to adopt a contrary position?
Well, "if"'s the word. This really has been done to death in the glue factory, but I don't think that anyone coming to the scriptures without a pre-existing interpretive framework that requires Scripture to be "literal, to use your word, however that might be interpreted, would conclude that it makes those claims for itself.

Oh, and by the way, I think that the phrase "their picture of Jesus" is somewhat perjoritive. It sounds as if you are accusing those who would take a different view than your own, as remaking Jesus in their own image. I recognise that this would not be your intention, but it could come across as being a wee bit non-purgatorial.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
Sorry if it sounded perjorative; I just meant 'their view of Jesus' as opposed to 'my view of Jesus'.

Luigi - the answer is no; on the progressive revelation point, the NT interprets the OT (which is why I am not an Orthodox Jew) (eg:"you have heard it said...but I say to you...") but it also fulfils and confirms it. I find it very hard to believe that when Jesus and the NT writers used words like "I have come to fulfil the Law", "not one jot or tittle...", "it is written", "God says..." (when quoting Scripture eg: the Letter to the Hebrews is full of that kind of example), etc they meant anything other than the OT was authoritatively and inerrantly the revelation and Word of God (Peter writes in similar vein of Paul's NT writings)

Yours in Christ

Matt
 
Posted by sanc (# 6355) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:

Luigi - the answer is no; on the progressive revelation point, the NT interprets the OT (which is why I am not an Orthodox Jew) (eg:"you have heard it said...but I say to you...") but it also fulfils and confirms it. I find it very hard to believe that when Jesus and the NT writers used words like "I have come to fulfil the Law", "not one jot or tittle...", "it is written", "God says..." (when quoting Scripture eg: the Letter to the Hebrews is full of that kind of example), etc they meant anything other than the OT was authoritatively and inerrantly the revelation and Word of God (Peter writes in similar vein of Paul's NT writings)
i agree 100%. the ot talk is all talk, words. somehow for those who did not witness the red sea parting, the manna falling from heaven, the fire consuming elijah's offering, etc., all of the ranting of the patriarchs and prophets are verbal spaghittee, nothing more. the ot talks about GOD as being the rock, the bread, the way etc, but nobody can ever grasp that to the fullest. so here comes JESUS, the WORD, as john puts it. all those words written concerning HIM is now made manifest in flesh and blood. so, is GOD really loving, compassionate, etc.? see for yourself, "behold the lamb of GOD," the exact representation of who HE is now in your midst to experience in person. JESUS the awaited is the WORD who is the fulfilment of all the words written about HIM.
 
Posted by Weed (# 4402) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
The question therefore for those who would seek to propound this dichotomy by putting forward Jesus as the supreme revelation of God and consequently requiring the OT to be interpreted against that revelation and, where necessary, be rejected or at least reduced to mere metaphor where it allegedly conflicts with their picture of Jesus is: why do you do this, when neither Jesus nor the later NT writers drew that distinction; if Jesus and the apostles were able to view the OT as authoritative, literal and revelatory, on what basis and authority do you seek to adopt a contrary position?
I'm quite happy to debate this on the inerrancy thread if you wish but I have been trying very hard for thirteen pages not to get into DH territory.
 
Posted by corpusdelicti (# 5124) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
...the apparent contradiction between "Jesus the Word/ supreme revelation of God" and "The Bible the Word/ supreme revelation of God" positions. I say 'apparent', because the difficulty for those who assert that there is such a contradiction is that Jesus Himself drew no such distinction. ...

... neither Jesus nor the later NT writers drew that distinction; if Jesus and the apostles were able to view the OT as authoritative, literal and revelatory, on what basis and authority do you seek to adopt a contrary position?

First, you can't have both Jesus and the bible being the supreme revelation of God by the very definition of supreme. If anything is supreme it must be Christ, so the bible must be second to Christ.

Christianity, from the epistles on, HAS radically reinterpreted scripture and prophesy. We often describe Jesus as "Prince of Peace" from Isaiah, but Jesus was not a royal, conquering messiah, as Jews were expecting from that prophesy, he was not a prince at all. So is Isaiah literally true? To me, no, it is metaphorically true.

Nor should we elide Law, scripture and prophesy. Just because we have them in one book does not mean Jesus saw them as a single entity: the Torah is not the same as Isaiah. Jesus might not alter the law, but he did bring to it a new light, and a radical interpretation of the prophets.

As Christians we have to radically interpret the OT, and make it secondary to Christ: that is, to me, what the NT, and Jesus, commands.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
But that is precisely what Jesus didn't do! [brick wall]

Yours in Christ

Matt
 
Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :
 
quote:
But that is precisely what Jesus didn't do!
Yes he did. "You have heard it said...but I say to you..." This can't mean anything else...

[brick wall] right back atcha! In Christian love, of course...
 
Posted by corpusdelicti (# 5124) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
But that is precisely what Jesus didn't do! [brick wall]

Yours in Christ

Matt
I'm not sure which bit of my post you are referring to, but did not Jesus say that the sabbath, and the law is made for man, not man for the sabbath/law. Is that not a fairly radical reinterpretation of 1st century understanding of the law?

What about Jesus describing God as his father, and talking about the Son of Man, both of which are ascribed to the messiah in prophesy I believe. Isn't that at least partly why he was crucified? Jews saw the messiah as a conqueror, so did Jesus not reinterpret prophecy by putting himself in that place?

To me, Christianity is all about reinterpreting the OT through Christ's revelation. This does not alter the fact that it is authoritative and truthful, but it does change how it is authoritative and truthful.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
quote:
But that is precisely what Jesus didn't do!
Yes he did. "You have heard it said...but I say to you..." This can't mean anything else...

[brick wall] right back atcha! In Christian love, of course...
[Killing me] [Big Grin]

Will try and "f.u.r.b" with some random proof-texting when I have a spare minute!

Yours in Christ

Matt
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by corpusdelicti:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
But that is precisely what Jesus didn't do! [brick wall]

Yours in Christ

Matt
I'm not sure which bit of my post you are referring to, but did not Jesus say that the sabbath, and the law is made for man, not man for the sabbath/law. Is that not a fairly radical reinterpretation of 1st century understanding of the law?

What about Jesus describing God as his father, and talking about the Son of Man, both of which are ascribed to the messiah in prophesy I believe. Isn't that at least partly why he was crucified? Jews saw the messiah as a conqueror, so did Jesus not reinterpret prophecy by putting himself in that place?

To me, Christianity is all about reinterpreting the OT through Christ's revelation. This does not alter the fact that it is authoritative and truthful, but it does change how it is authoritative and truthful.
But...to return to the OP, what Jesus emphatically does not say is "You know those bits in the Scriptures where my Dad says people had to be wiped out? Well, it didn't really happen and even if it did, He didn't really mean it cos He's not like that at all, mankind's moved on from that kind of thing and it's all pretty much a metaphor for how we must all be purified from sin, and that's the spin and gloss that you're to put on it."

Apologies for tongue-in-cheek tone of the above and if I've misrepresented the position but is that not the basic thrust of interpretation by some to the 'genocidal' passages?

Yours in Christ

Matt
 
Posted by corpusdelicti (# 5124) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:


But...to return to the OP, what Jesus emphatically does not say is "You know those bits in the Scriptures where my Dad says people had to be wiped out? Well, it didn't really happen and even if it did, He didn't really mean it cos He's not like that at all, mankind's moved on from that kind of thing and it's all pretty much a metaphor for how we must all be purified from sin, and that's the spin and gloss that you're to put on it."

Apologies for tongue-in-cheek tone of the above and if I've misrepresented the position but is that not the basic thrust of interpretation by some to the 'genocidal' passages?

Yours in Christ

Matt
Has anyone on this thread said that he did say that? Of course not! I was replying to your rather unorthodox claim that Jesus and the OT could be equal revelations of God, and that Jesus treated the OT as literal.

Does Jesus say: You know when my Dad ordered the slaughter of the Canaanites/Amakelites/whoeverites? Well he did it and he could again, so if I order you to slaughter Romans just do it.

Of course he didn't. We can't know exactly what Jesus thought about much of the historical parts of the OT; the NT simply doesn't tell us.

So what did Jesus actually say? What about "If your enemy strikes you turn the other cheek?" Jesus really did say that. Is that compatible with genocide?

Most Christians would, I guess, see loving God and loving your neighbour as laid out in the NT as being incompatible with committing genocide, yet some passages in the OT claim that God ordered Jews to commit genocide. It is how we resolve that contradiction that is the issue.
 
Posted by Weed (# 4402) on :
 
What do you make of this passage from Luke 13, Matt?

quote:
Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. Jesus answered, "Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them -- do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish."

 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
Er...Jesus being 'not very nice' like the OT perhaps?

Yours in Christ

Matt
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
Not sure whether this will take us into Inerrant Dead Horses territory; happy to discuss it there too but I think this is also germane as to how we take the 'genocide Scriptures' in the light of the NT, and in particular Jesus' teaching.

I promised some examples of how Jesus affirms the OT a few posts ago, so brace yourselves for some unashamed proof-texting... [Big Grin] :-

First, the quote from Matt 5:17-18: "not one jot or tittle..." referred to above. This comes before the "you have heard it said....but I say to you" passages in the Sermon and IMO therefore those subsequent passages (Matt 5:21ff) should be interpreted in the light of this 'intro'.

In Matt 19:4, He quotes from Gen 2:24, attributing those words to God.

On other occasions, He speaks of His actions, particularly His death, being in fulfilment of the Scriptures eg: Matt 26:24, 53-56, Mark 8:31, Luke 18:31, Luke 22:37 (quoting Is 53:12)

In similar vein, the apostles refer to the OT as binding, authoritative and the words of God: Acts4:25, Rom 1:2, 9:17, Gal 3:8. (The apostles claimed a similar authority for their own NT writings: I Cor 2:13; 11:2; 14:37-38, Gal 1:1,8; 2:7ff)

Now, what some seem to have been arguing here (and, again forgive and correct me if I have misunderstood the stance here) is that the final moral authority is not Scripture but Jesus and that we must judge Scripture 'through the lens' , as it were, of the revelation of God in Christ, because that revelation effectively 'judges' Scripture; thus we are free to accept those parts of the OT which are in harmony with Jesus and reject or minimalise those which are apparently not. Only one, absolutely fundamental problem with that: Jesus does not do that . Far from being the 'judge' of Scripture in this way,He obeys, fulfils and endorses it, as I hope I have demonstrated with the above small selection of quotes. Those who state that Jesus is the final authority on matters must, like Him, equally acknowledge the authority of Scripture. Otherwise, as I said on Sharkshooter's "What if I'm right?" thread, we 'create' a Jesus outside of Scripture, a Christ that is a product of our human imaginations and wishful thinking; this amounts of we are not careful to idolatry. It's ironic that there are those who would accuse fundamentalists and others of idolatry because they regard the Bible as inerrant; this accusation would hold water if Jesus had been similarly idolatrous.

Matt
 
Posted by Sean D (# 2271) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Custard123:
God's revealed will is that people should not betray the innocent. That is what he tells people to do.

However, his sovereign will was that Judas should do exactly that to Jesus. That does not mean that Judas' action was right, but nor does it mean that it was outside God's plan.
I don't think this is a good example. The distinction here is more between God's active will ("I want something to happen so it will") and his permissive will ("I am prepared to let this happen for various reasons even though I don't want it to").

I would need considerably more examples of a biblical distinction between revealed and sovereign wills to believe they are different. This is because if revelation is to be revelation, it must actually and truly reveal what God is like and what he wants. Otherwise it's not revelation at all.

So this kind of thinking undermines precisely what it seeks to uphold: the truthfulness and trustworthiness of God's self-revelation.
 
Posted by Sean D (# 2271) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
First, the quote from Matt 5:17-18: "not one jot or tittle..." referred to above. This comes before the "you have heard it said....but I say to you" passages in the Sermon and IMO therefore those subsequent passages (Matt 5:21ff) should be interpreted in the light of this 'intro'.
At the end of the day I just think Matthew (the gospel not you sir) is self-contradictory. It is not simultaneously possible for not one jot nor tittle to pass away from the Law and yet for Jesus to set aside important chunks of it in the antitheses.

This drove me batshit in my NT studies. I looked into so many angles and no matter which approach to the text you take you end up with severe problems.

The answer I ended up with which satisfied me most was that when Jesus speaks of fulfilling the Law (and don't forget the Prophets! which most commentators do) in that verse he means it in exactly the same way "fulfil" is meant everywhere else in Matthew - the Law points to Jesus and predicts him. It is not to do with Jesus perfectly performing the Law etc. Therefore none of the Law can pass away because it all points to Jesus. Doesn't mean we have to obey it all though.

The problem this causes is what to do with Jesus' warnings about not breaking the least of "these commands". The only sense I can make of this (given that clearly Christians are not expected to obey EVERY OT command) is that he is talking about his own commands that follow in the antitheses and not Torah. The only other option is to believe that Matthew believed Christian males needed to be circumcised etc.

At the end of the day you get left with the following question:

Should the OT laws be something which Christians automatically obey unless there is good NT reason to believe they are superseded/replaced/increased/whatever or are they laws which Christians should automatically assume are superseded unless there is good NT reason to believe they are still in force?

I believe the Pauline, (mostly) Matthean, Hebrews and at the end of the day dominical answer is that there is no reason to obey them unless there is good reason to believe they are still binding on Christians.

Goodbye Ten Commandments. Ain't gonna miss ya.

ETA: This doesn't mean that the OT provides no moral guidance or revelation of the moral will and heart of God - but simply that we do not follow it as Law whilst trying to hold silly distinctions about sacrifical and ceremonial (as if the two were easily distinct to your average Israelite).

[ 29. July 2004, 10:56: Message edited by: Sean D ]
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
Sean, I would tend to go along with the answers put forward by the likes of Packer ( 'Fundamentalism' and the Word of God ), Stonehouse ( The Witness of Mark and Matthew to Christ )and Tasker ( The Old Testament in the New Testament ), namely that whilst Jesus challenged Jewish ideas, there was no clash of 'authorities' between His teaching and the OT; what He did take a pop at was not so much the written word of the Law, to which both He and His Pharaseeical opponents appealed, but the legalistic additions and interpretations of it which formed a barrier between the Pharisees and God eg: Corban, 'loving one's neighbours'='hating one's enemies', murder and adultery only being wrong as actions rather than intentions/ thoughts, oaths only being binding if sworn under God's name, the extension of permitted grounds for divorce to virtually any reason as long as you're a bloke, etc

Matt
 
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 
Then you follow the Law, Matt?
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
Since I am 'in Christ', I fulfil it! [Razz]

But, as I warned above, we are getting tangential; we are talking about the authority and authenticity of the historical passages in the OT, particularly those pertaining to genocide. If you want to discuss the relationship between Law and Grace etc, perhaps we'd better start a new thread...

Matt
 
Posted by corpusdelicti (# 5124) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:


In similar vein, the apostles refer to the OT as binding, authoritative and the words of God: Acts4:25, Rom 1:2, 9:17, Gal 3:8. ...

...Only one, absolutely fundamental problem with that: Jesus does not do that . Far from being the 'judge' of Scripture in this way,He obeys, fulfils and endorses it, as I hope I have demonstrated with the above small selection of quotes.
As Sean D has given an excellent answer to some of your post I will reply to what I have quoted above.

Not one of the verses you cite state that the OT has absolute authority, or is binding on us.
Acts 4 states that the Holy Spirit inspired the psalmist, true but so what?
Romans 1 says that Jesus fulfils the prophets. If you read my post you will see that I agree with this.
Romans 9 says that God spoke through Pharoh to show his power and mercy.

Galatians 3 supports my position (so thank you Matt!). It says that when God spoke to Abraham he meant that all people (including Gentiles) would be blessed, not just the Jews. That sounds like radical reinterpretation of Jewish scripture by the apostles to me!

Yet again you say: Jesus does not do that, and yet I can't see how you justify that. Yes, Jesus does fulfill the prophets and the law, but he does not do it in the way Jews were expecting. To see how he does we must reinterpret the OT.

We have to interpret the OT through Christ, I'm hardly being radical here, we as Christians have been doing just that for 2000 years. If we didn't reinterpret we would all be Jewish. So why can't we question whether or not God ordered genocide given that it appears to contradict the teachings of Christ?
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
The question for me is "Did God say that in the OT or not?" ie:is the OT a reliable, trustworthy, authentic and authoritative account (in this particular thread, with regard to its historical account)? My answer, as set out above is this: Jesus thought so, so did the apostles, and so do I

Matt
 
Posted by Weed (# 4402) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Er...Jesus being 'not very nice' like the OT perhaps?
I’ll assume that’s a response to my question about what you made of Jesus giving two examples of victims, one by murder, one by natural causes, and saying that in neither case was it to be assumed that they were any more guilty than those who didn’t die. In other words, these sorts of things are not caused by God.

Do you have a different interpretation?

I see that elsewhere you smilingly claim that you fulfil the Law. I think not. As to the question of what Jesus confirmed in relation to the Law and the Prophets, Luke 24 seems to explain very clearly what he meant. From the post-resurrection appearances:

quote:
He said to them, "This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms." Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. He told them, "This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. You are witnesses of these things.
Note the words “about me”.
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
The question for me is "Did God say that in the OT or not?" ie:is the OT a reliable, trustworthy, authentic and authoritative account (in this particular thread, with regard to its historical account)? My answer, as set out above is this: Jesus thought so, so did the apostles, and so do I.
You are putting words into Jesus’ mouth. Since no-one appears to know who wrote the book of Joshua it would be very strange for Jesus to confirm that God really did speak to him in the middle of the battle. Or are you claiming that Jesus used the same methods of interpretation as you? His willingness to interpret the OT would appear to say something quite different about his approach. Don't forget, this is the man (Luke 4) who stood up in the synagogue at the beginning of his ministry, read a prophetic passage from Isaiah and said, "It's about ME." That's a bit more than a gloss.
 
Posted by Sean D (# 2271) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
My answer, as set out above is this: Jesus thought so, so did the apostles, and so do I
Please tell me where Jesus said "Truly truly I say to you, those accounts of genocide in the Scriptures really did happen in my opinion". He may have thought that some or even many of the events of what we know as the Old Testament did happen, but we have no evidence of his thoughts on these particular accounts, as far as I know.

I think you will find you are making an argument from silence.

Furthermore, can you tell me why Christians must think something just because "Jesus thought so" or "Jesus said so"? For Jesus to be fully human (truly incarnate) then he was surely a man of his time, a first century peasant from a backwater of a minor Roman province. There was stuff he didn't know.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
You are equally, I submit, arguing from silence. Further,I have given examples where Jesus affirms the authority and integrity of the OT. There is no evidence that He regarded it as anything other than God's words.

Weed - although Jesus did fulfil the Law, by extension you, me, any Christian fulfils the Law as we are in Christ.

Matt
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sean D:

Furthermore, can you tell me why Christians must think something just because "Jesus thought so" or "Jesus said so"? For Jesus to be fully human (truly incarnate) then he was surely a man of his time, a first century peasant from a backwater of a minor Roman province. There was stuff he didn't know.
Er...because we are being transformed into His image (Rom 12:1-2)? Good enough reason for me...

Matt

[Deleted extra code.]

[ 30. July 2004, 01:06: Message edited by: Tortuf ]
 
Posted by Weed (# 4402) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Weed - although Jesus did fulfil the Law, by extension you, me, any Christian fulfils the Law as we are in Christ.
I wasted my time posting, didn't I?
 
Posted by Sean D (# 2271) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
You are equally, I submit, arguing from silence. Further,I have given examples where Jesus affirms the authority and integrity of the OT. There is no evidence that He regarded it as anything other than God's words.
I am not arguing from silence because I deem it irrelevant whether Jesus believed that the OT genocides were willed by God or not. You however deem it relevant and true and I am pointing out that your argument for it being true is a bad one because it is based on a very big assumption, namely that Jesus was an inerrantist.

Jesus got stuff wrong. He thought his second coming was going to come during the lifetime of his disciples, for example. He also admitted ignorance on at least one thing, i.e. he was not omniscient. I really don't see why we must believe everything Jesus believed.

That we are being transformed into the likeness of Jesus (Romans 8 is a better text than 12 for that [Biased] ) and we have the mind of Christ does not seem to me to be adequate reason; these verses make no reference to "believing everything Jesus believed even though he was a man of his time, as we are people of our time".

[de-ballsed up quote]

[ 30. July 2004, 10:32: Message edited by: Sean D ]
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sean D:
I am not arguing from silence because I deem it irrelevant whether Jesus believed that the OT genocides were willed by God or not. You however deem it relevant and true and I am pointing out that your argument for it being true is a bad one because it is based on a very big assumption, namely that Jesus was an inerrantist.

I don't regard that as a complete assumption by a long chalk. It is, if you like, a faith position, but it is not a mere assumption as it is based on Jesus' own references to the OT, some of which I have already quoted; as I have already stated, there is no evidence to the contrary. I therefore conclude that this is a reasonable hypothesis which, whilst not proven, has evidence in its favour and none against.

Matt

[ 30. July 2004, 11:02: Message edited by: Matt Black ]
 
Posted by Sean D (# 2271) on :
 
I can see your point, although even so it still rests on the assumption that we should think about everything the same way that Jesus did.

Jesus never condemned slavery.

Jesus was rude about Gentiles (referring to them as dogs at one point and "ethnikoi" at another, a highly insulting and possibly racist term).

It seems to me that on these two points at least he was fully a person of his time. Presumably he also believed that the earth was flat and perhaps also in a six-day creation. We can infer this even though he never explicitly endorses this view. But that hardly makes it binding on all Christians, especially if we subsequently discover new information which was not available to the human Jesus who was clearly fallible and ignorant about at least some matters.

At the end of the day one must balance the possibility that Jesus may have believed that God commanded these genocides with the fact that Jesus revealed a God of infinite compassion and love towards all that he has made. Maybe Jesus didn't fully work out the implications of this idea for interpreting the genocide passages, as for example neither Jesus nor Paul worked out the implications of the gospel towards the practice of slavery.

[ 30. July 2004, 12:23: Message edited by: Sean D ]
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
ISTM therefore that Jesus didn't know Who the heck He was! This to my mind conflicts with His Divinity and swings the Chalcedonian pendulum too far towards His humanity. I don't think you can have it both ways - on the one hand saying that He was 'clearly fallible' etc whilst at the same time claiming that He 'revealed a God of infinite compassion'.

Matt
 
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sean D:
neither Jesus nor Paul worked out the implications of the gospel towards the practice of slavery.
Here I am on this thread again. *sigh*

But I just wanted to say:
1) There's some pretty odd exegesis going on on this thread. (not least the "radical interpretation" Paul apparently put on Genesis 12 by insisting that all nations would be blessed through the Gospel. I don't call that a particularly radical interpretation of "all nations will be blessed through you"!)

2) Paul does seem to extrapolate some of the implications of the Gospel for slavery in Philemon - with the implication that if the legal system says the slave must obey he must, but a Christian master should treat the slave like a brother.

The fact that Jesus never mentions it, I've just taken as him thinking other things were more important, rather than him not "having considered" some of the implications of the Gospel.

In fact, the more I think about that the stranger it seems. Did the Trinity not work out the implications of the Gospel in the eons before Jesus was incarnated?
 
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
In fact, the more I think about that the stranger it seems. Did the Trinity not work out the implications of the Gospel in the eons before Jesus was incarnated?
Did Jesus know everything then?
 
Posted by corpusdelicti (# 5124) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:


But I just wanted to say:
1) There's some pretty odd exegesis going on on this thread. (not least the "radical interpretation" Paul apparently put on Genesis 12 by insisting that all nations would be blessed through the Gospel. I don't call that a particularly radical interpretation of "all nations will be blessed through you"!)

*equally heavy sigh!*

Of course that interpretation isn't radical to us as Christians. My point is that it would be radical to 1st century Jews who saw themselves as Gods special chosen people.

Take some more of Galatians 3:

quote:
10 All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law." 11Clearly no one is justified before God by the law, because, "The righteous will live by faith."
So it is written that all who do not do everything in the law are cursed, yet Paul interprets this as those who rely on the law are cursed! How radical must that have sounded to Jews used to following the law?

If the apostles can drop much of the law quoting justification by faith through Christ crucified, why shouldn't we be a little radical in our reading of just a few verses about genocide?
 
Posted by Sean D (# 2271) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
In fact, the more I think about that the stranger it seems. Did the Trinity not work out the implications of the Gospel in the eons before Jesus was incarnated?
Of course. But why on earth should we suppose that Jesus should know all of them in his human, incarnate form? Clearly there was at least one thing to which he admitted not knowing.
 
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sean D:
...
Jesus never condemned slavery.

...
How do you know that?

I just love it when people are convinced that since something is not recorded, He did not say it. The gospels are not transcripts of every word He spoke and every thing He did.
 
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sean D:
But why on earth should we suppose that Jesus should know all of them in his human, incarnate form? Clearly there was at least one thing to which he admitted not knowing.
Absolutely not disagreeing on the point of discussion - the whole issue of kenosis is an interesting one, and I must confess to be far from thought through about it.
But to have an assumption (which I think you had Sean) that Jesus knew no more than someone average in his day about important spiritual issues (such as the reliability of Israel's history!), I think veers perilously close to Arianism.
Do you not think so?
 
Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :
 
Sean - referring back to Jesus' comments that 'not one jot or tittle of the law will pass away' and when he later says 'you have heard it said but I say to you .....'

First, I think you are taking the question more seriously than others on this thread. The whole view that says the first comment means that whatever Jesus meant by the second wasn't undermining the law is untenable. Of course it was - he was openly contradicting it. The clue is in the use of the word 'but'.

Perhaps a better way of thinking of it is that Jesus recognised that he was moving on from the law in the pentateuch and that like the pre-exilic prophets he was part of that journey in the scriptures.

In other words he was affirming scriptures in which a journey that had already been started and was visible. So when he says 'not one jot..' he really does mean not one jot should pass away. For him it was important that we remember the whole journey or we don't see the forward momentuum. And that forward momentuum is of critical importance. If we forget where we started then we fail to notice how far we have travelled.

Luigi
 
Posted by Sean D (# 2271) on :
 
Luigi - I broadly agree, though I wouldn't phrase it quite like that.

Sharkshooter - yes, sorry. That was a very foolish error. I should of course have said "to our knowledge" or "as far as we know". But the point certainly stands regarding Paul, who does not make the step between "Christians should treat slaves well" to "slavery is outright wrong according to the gospel, which proclaims all people created in the image of God and so equal in dignity".

Lep - I really don't think it's Arian. The problem is that Jesus must have possessed all the attributes of God to be fully God and all the attributes of a human to be fully human. Being fully human includes being ignorant, weak, afraid, weary and so on - all of which Jesus indeed was. But of course Jesus must also have been all-powerful, transcendent and all-knowing at the same time. The question then becomes how he could be mutually exclusive things at the same time, and part of the answer is in the doctrine of the two natures - he is all-knowing in his divine nature but not in his human nature. The divine nature and the human nature are not mixed, they meet in one person.

I am going on holiday for a fortnight so sorry if I don't get back to any responses to these ramblings. I'm sure an Orthodox person will be able to explain the Incarnation/two natures stuff better than I. Failing that, read any book by Tom Weinandy, who is probably the best thinker I have read on the subject.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
It is good to see that this thread is still on page 1 even though I've been gone the past 10 days. Please forgive me if I skip back a page to answer Luigi - who I see has begun a thread on Girard's point of view on this.
quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
If I understand you correctly, you are saying that there is no such thing as the kind of divine revelation described in the Bible.
But I'm not saying that they should have listened to the right God. I'm saying that God appeared to them in a way that they could accept and follow.
First I don’t believe that God appeared to them in a way that they could 'accept and follow'. This whole idea that God told the Israelites that they were to annihilate an entire people group because they would accept it and follow it is unsustainable from my point of view. Surely you can see the problem with this POV.
Yes, there is certainly a problem with this point of view. I should not have said that "God appeared to them" but that God allowed them to view Him in this way. He allowed this, even though it was wrong, in accommodation to their character. Their character demanded a god who would act this way, that is, who would destroy their enemies. This is clearly not good. At the same time it is a universal human misconception that God is on their side and is opposed to their enemies.

I'm actually just saying what you say here:
quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
I don’t particularly want to come across as cynical and I fully accept that God can speak to humans through their inner voices, dreams, prophecy etc. However, it seems to me, that humans have been hearing voices since the beginning of (human) time. Humans have believed they have heard from God and I think more often than not this has been an act of self-deception. I think this is true no matter what you believe – few Christians would say that every human being who claims they have heard from God actually did – many would be unconvinced by Joseph Smith’s, Muhammad’s, claims.
This is what I am saying as well. This is exactly the point. Those who claimed to to have been commanded by God to kill the innocent were mistaken.

Moses and Joshua claimed to have heard from God, but how do we know that they really did? The answer seems to be that their revelations appear to be authenticated by those who came later (i.e. the Gospels) who affirmed that they were genuine. Our confidence in the authenticity of Jesus' claims then works backwards to affirm the Law of Moses, which He accepted as the Word of God - even though He did not hesitate to change it.

quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
My point is, how do humans know when they have heard from God? Some Christians may ask: is it in line with the Bible? Or some others might ask: is it in line with Jesus? Or even: is it in line with my tradition? My point is that the ancients had no way of doing either. So the whole idea that revelation is discernable through someone claiming that they have heard from God is not that useful. My point is that even when you think you have heard from God, how do you know it isn’t just self-deception? My argument is that the most reliable voice throughout history has been the victim. If we are to avoid setting the two most important commands in violation of each other, we need to listen to the victim.
I agree that someone's claims to have spoken to God is not a reliable measure, just as Jesus' claims to be God's Son may be equally true or false. A person adopts a religion when he or she accepts that religion's claims as genuine. Christ Himself warned that many people's claims would not be authentic.

I confess to not really seeing how "hearing the voice of the victim" is helpful. As a Swedenborgian I rely on Swedenborg's revelation to make rational sense of the problems we are articulating here. This revelation points out what is literal and what is symbolic, and why it all happened the way that it did. I accept this explanation as genuine because it makes sense to me. But it may just as easily be mistaken, just as I believe that others who have claimed revelation were misled, or deluded themselves.

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that the voice of the victim in such stories as Jephthah's daughter and the Levite's concubine show the real truth of the situation. That is, that the portrayal of the victim's plight allows us to see evil for what it is, in line with Jesus' teachings. I'll look on the Girard thread to understand this better.

In any case, I think I'm agreeing with you at this point as to what was really going on in the accounts of Old Testament genocide. God did not command it or justify it. They were mistaken.

I think we disagree, however, as to why these accounts were nevertheless included, through God's inspiration, in the canon. I would say that it was because these events actually symbolized good things (that is, good triumphing over evil) even though they were not actually good. I'm not quite clear as to why you think that they were rightly included in the canon. Or is it because they contain the voice of the victim?
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
Luigi said: If you are still out there Martin. Are you still saying that you still have no problem with God demanding that they annihilate the Amalakites?

Martin responds: I’m always out there Luigi! And Esmerelda – you’re my big sister by 1 year. Luigi – of COURSE I do. God is problematic to say the least. But I have no basis whatsoever for not believing that that is exactly, explicitly what He did.

Luigi said: Do you believe that it is unproblematic to assert that we should love our neighbour as ourself and we should be willing to slit their 2 year old daughter's throat?

Martin responds: It doesn’t arise for Christians. Ever. Never will. It did for Israel.

Luigi said: You keep saying that you no longer believe that God asks us to do this - though you have never explained why? Was genocide off God's agenda when Jesus was born? Was it suddenly wrong to wipe out entire people groups on Good Friday? Or was it Easter Sunday when all genocidal adts should suddenly stop?

Martin responds: The Ten Commandment theocratic Old Covenant with Israel died with Christ. All of it. All of the law and prophets were fulfilled in Christ. Every jot and tittle of the law passed with Christ. Christ – God - is the law - love. Christianity is the Sabbath fulfilled. Life in Christ. Genocide is off all Christians’ agendas. It remains God’s prerogative.

Luigi said: To my mind this is just an attempt to ignore the moral problems by removing it far away from us in time, so that it rather conveniently becomes something that you believe could no longer apply?

Martin responds: Excellent point. Christianity is a vast blessing, incomparable with the ergon nomou – works of the law. I KNOW it doesn’t apply. I’m not a pre-crucifixion Israelite.

Luigi said: All your posts about how God can commit genocidal acts is irrelevant. After all it wasn't about those passages where God, or the angel of death, appears to have lashed out unfairly and indiscriminately, that we were talking about. It was those times when God supposedly told people to do the act. Perhaps he was so tired he couldn't do it himself. Or perhaps I should say that he couldn't arrange to do what happened in Kings 19 himself!

Martin responds: They may be to you, but not to me. A God who kills has the right to delegate killing – in a true theocracy - for whatever pragmatic, perfect, purposes. That is perfectly consistent. Christianity makes Him responsible for His killings and us for ours.

Luigi said: It is the problem that God was telling humans to take so many 'innocent' lives for no consistent reason that there is a problem. Expecially in the light of how in other places he seems to insist that taking other humans lives is wrong in many, many circumstances.

Luigi

Martin responds: AGREED! Absolutely. God is most problematic. Ineffably, terrifyingly holy. We will remain confronted with His strange, terrifying love, even with the beautiful mask of Christ, until we embrace the Amelekites in the resurrection, all tears wiped away, transcendent, glorified.

Martin
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0