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

Printer-friendly view

»	Ship of Fools » Ship's Locker » Limbo » Purgatory: This is the thread where we talk about Old Testament genocide. (Page 11)

Email this page to a friend or enemy.

Pages in this thread: 1 2 3 ... 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Source: (consider it)

Thread: Purgatory: This is the thread where we talk about Old Testament genocide.

Leprechaun

Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408

Posted

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.

Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004 | IP: Logged

sanc
Shipmate
# 6355

Posted

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.

--------------------
I am, therefore I think.

Posts: 358 | From: Philippines | Registered: May 2004 | IP: Logged

Tuggboat
Shipmate
# 7001

Posted

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 ]

--------------------
The wind blows, and restless are the sails;
Even the rudder begs direction;

Posts: 78 | From: Providence Forge, VA | Registered: May 2004 | IP: Logged

Esmeralda

Ship's token UK Mennonite
# 582

Posted

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 ]

--------------------
I can take the despair. It's the hope I can't stand.

http://reversedstandard.wordpress.com/

Posts: 17415 | From: A small island nobody pays any attention to | Registered: Jun 2001 | IP: Logged

Luigi
Shipmate
# 4031

Posted

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 ]

Posts: 752 | Registered: Feb 2003 | IP: Logged

GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682

Posted

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>

Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003 | IP: Logged

Leprechaun

Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408

Posted

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.

--------------------
He hath loved us, He hath loved us, because he would love

Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004 | IP: Logged

Leprechaun

Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408

Posted

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]

--------------------
He hath loved us, He hath loved us, because he would love

Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004 | IP: Logged

Seeker963
Shipmate
# 2066

Posted

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]

--------------------
"People waste so much of their lives on hate and fear." My friend JW-N: Chaplain and three-time cancer survivor. (Went to be with her Lord March 21, 2010. May she rest in peace and rise in glory.)

Posts: 4152 | From: Northeast Ohio | Registered: Dec 2001 | IP: Logged

Seeker963
Shipmate
# 2066

Posted

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 ]

--------------------
"People waste so much of their lives on hate and fear." My friend JW-N: Chaplain and three-time cancer survivor. (Went to be with her Lord March 21, 2010. May she rest in peace and rise in glory.)

Posts: 4152 | From: Northeast Ohio | Registered: Dec 2001 | IP: Logged

GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682

Posted

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.

Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003 | IP: Logged

GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682

Posted

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.

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]

Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003 | IP: Logged

lapsed heathen

Hurler on the ditch
# 4403

Posted

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.

--------------------
"We are the Easter people and our song is Alleluia"

Posts: 1361 | From: Marble county | Registered: Apr 2003 | IP: Logged

Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

Posted

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.

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001 | IP: Logged

Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

Posted

Grey Face you git. Talking bollocks am I?

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001 | IP: Logged

GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682

Posted

That's what's got me worried.

If you are, I'm suffering from a severe failure to miscomprehend you.

Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003 | IP: Logged

Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

Posted

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.

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001 | IP: Logged

Sebastian
Apprentice
# 7494

Posted

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 ]

--------------------
"A wise man is a fool with a good memory"

Posts: 29 | From: USA | Registered: Jun 2004 | IP: Logged

Sebastian
Apprentice
# 7494

Posted

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.

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

--------------------
"A wise man is a fool with a good memory"

Posts: 29 | From: USA | Registered: Jun 2004 | IP: Logged

Sebastian
Apprentice
# 7494

Posted

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

--------------------
"A wise man is a fool with a good memory"

Posts: 29 | From: USA | Registered: Jun 2004 | IP: Logged

Sebastian
Apprentice
# 7494

Posted

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?

[Mode=Irony]My God, I never thought of that![/Mode]
I have to say, I thought of that sort of response too, 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 ]

--------------------
"A wise man is a fool with a good memory"

Posts: 29 | From: USA | Registered: Jun 2004 | IP: Logged

Luigi
Shipmate
# 4031

Posted

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.

Posts: 752 | Registered: Feb 2003 | IP: Logged

Weed
Shipmate
# 4402

Posted

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.

--------------------
Weed

Posts: 519 | From: UK | Registered: Apr 2003 | IP: Logged

Seeker963
Shipmate
# 2066

Posted

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]

)

--------------------
"People waste so much of their lives on hate and fear." My friend JW-N: Chaplain and three-time cancer survivor. (Went to be with her Lord March 21, 2010. May she rest in peace and rise in glory.)

Posts: 4152 | From: Northeast Ohio | Registered: Dec 2001 | IP: Logged

Sebastian
Apprentice
# 7494

Posted

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!. )

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

--------------------
"A wise man is a fool with a good memory"

Posts: 29 | From: USA | Registered: Jun 2004 | IP: Logged

Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76

Posted

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.

Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001 | IP: Logged

Sebastian
Apprentice
# 7494

Posted

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

--------------------
"A wise man is a fool with a good memory"

Posts: 29 | From: USA | Registered: Jun 2004 | IP: Logged

Sebastian
Apprentice
# 7494

Posted

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 ]

--------------------
"A wise man is a fool with a good memory"

Posts: 29 | From: USA | Registered: Jun 2004 | IP: Logged

Freddy
Shipmate
# 365

Posted

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."

--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg

Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001 | IP: Logged

Seeker963
Shipmate
# 2066

Posted

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 ]

--------------------
"People waste so much of their lives on hate and fear." My friend JW-N: Chaplain and three-time cancer survivor. (Went to be with her Lord March 21, 2010. May she rest in peace and rise in glory.)

Posts: 4152 | From: Northeast Ohio | Registered: Dec 2001 | IP: Logged

FatMac

Ship's Macintosh
# 2914

Posted

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.)

--------------------
Do not beware the slippery slope - it is where faith resides.
Do not avoid the grey areas - they are where God works.

Posts: 1706 | From: Sydney | Registered: Jun 2002 | IP: Logged

Freddy
Shipmate
# 365

Posted

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:

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.

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.

--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg

Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001 | IP: Logged

Leprechaun

Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408

Posted

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]

Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004 | IP: Logged

Freddy
Shipmate
# 365

Posted

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 ]

--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg

Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001 | IP: Logged

Leprechaun

Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408

Posted

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.

Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004 | IP: Logged

Freddy
Shipmate
# 365

Posted

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.

--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg

Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001 | IP: Logged

Esmeralda

Ship's token UK Mennonite
# 582

Posted

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.

--------------------
I can take the despair. It's the hope I can't stand.

http://reversedstandard.wordpress.com/

Posts: 17415 | From: A small island nobody pays any attention to | Registered: Jun 2001 | IP: Logged

hermit
Shipmate
# 1803

Posted

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.

Posts: 812 | From: Seattle | Registered: Nov 2001 | IP: Logged

Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

Posted

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.

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001 | IP: Logged

Esmeralda

Ship's token UK Mennonite
# 582

Posted

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.

--------------------
I can take the despair. It's the hope I can't stand.

http://reversedstandard.wordpress.com/

Posts: 17415 | From: A small island nobody pays any attention to | Registered: Jun 2001 | IP: Logged

Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

Posted

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

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001 | IP: Logged

Peppone
Marine
# 3855

Posted

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.

--------------------
I looked at the wa's o' Glasgow Cathedral, where vandals and angels painted their names,
I was clutching at straws and wrote your initials, while parish officials were safe in their hames.

Posts: 3020 | From: Hong Kong | Registered: Dec 2002 | IP: Logged

Tuggboat
Shipmate
# 7001

Posted

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 ]

--------------------
The wind blows, and restless are the sails;
Even the rudder begs direction;

Posts: 78 | From: Providence Forge, VA | Registered: May 2004 | IP: Logged

Sebastian
Apprentice
# 7494

Posted

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

--------------------
"A wise man is a fool with a good memory"

Posts: 29 | From: USA | Registered: Jun 2004 | IP: Logged

Sebastian
Apprentice
# 7494

Posted

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

--------------------
"A wise man is a fool with a good memory"

Posts: 29 | From: USA | Registered: Jun 2004 | IP: Logged

Luigi
Shipmate
# 4031

Posted

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

Posts: 752 | Registered: Feb 2003 | IP: Logged

Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76

Posted

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.

--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.

Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001 | IP: Logged

Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7

Posted

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.

--------------------
Narcissism.

Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001 | IP: Logged

Leprechaun

Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408

Posted

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.

Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004 | IP: Logged

Seeker963
Shipmate
# 2066

Posted

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.

--------------------
"People waste so much of their lives on hate and fear." My friend JW-N: Chaplain and three-time cancer survivor. (Went to be with her Lord March 21, 2010. May she rest in peace and rise in glory.)

Posts: 4152 | From: Northeast Ohio | Registered: Dec 2001 | IP: Logged

Pages in this thread: 1 2 3 ... 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Printer-friendly view

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0

sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website