homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Ship's Locker   » Limbo   » Purgatory: This is the thread where we talk about Old Testament genocide. (Page 2)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  ...  12  13  14 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Purgatory: This is the thread where we talk about Old Testament genocide.
Billfrid
Shipmate
# 7279

 - Posted      Profile for Billfrid   Email Billfrid   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with 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?
(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?)

Posts: 58 | From: London UK | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Leprechaun

Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408

 - Posted      Profile for Leprechaun     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

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

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

Ship's vacant look
# 2270

 - Posted      Profile for Psyduck   Author's homepage   Email Psyduck   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty.
"Lle rhyfedd i falchedd fod/Yw teiau ar y tywod." (Ieuan Brydydd Hir)

Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Billfrid
Shipmate
# 7279

 - Posted      Profile for Billfrid   Email Billfrid   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Thanks Psyduck [Axe murder]
Posts: 58 | From: London UK | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682

 - Posted      Profile for GreyFace   Email GreyFace   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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]

Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Tortuf
Ship's fisherman
# 3784

 - Posted      Profile for Tortuf   Author's homepage   Email Tortuf   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

Posts: 6963 | From: The Venice of the South | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Weed
Shipmate
# 4402

 - Posted      Profile for Weed     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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?

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

Posts: 519 | From: UK | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7

 - Posted      Profile for Wood   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

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

Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Leprechaun

Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408

 - Posted      Profile for Leprechaun     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Psyduck

Ship's vacant look
# 2270

 - Posted      Profile for Psyduck   Author's homepage   Email Psyduck   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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]

--------------------
The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty.
"Lle rhyfedd i falchedd fod/Yw teiau ar y tywod." (Ieuan Brydydd Hir)

Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Psyduck

Ship's vacant look
# 2270

 - Posted      Profile for Psyduck   Author's homepage   Email Psyduck   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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?

--------------------
The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty.
"Lle rhyfedd i falchedd fod/Yw teiau ar y tywod." (Ieuan Brydydd Hir)

Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Billfrid
Shipmate
# 7279

 - Posted      Profile for Billfrid   Email Billfrid   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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?

Posts: 58 | From: London UK | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402

 - Posted      Profile for Custard   Author's homepage   Email Custard   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with 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.

--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.


Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Psyduck

Ship's vacant look
# 2270

 - Posted      Profile for Psyduck   Author's homepage   Email Psyduck   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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?

--------------------
The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty.
"Lle rhyfedd i falchedd fod/Yw teiau ar y tywod." (Ieuan Brydydd Hir)

Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402

 - Posted      Profile for Custard   Author's homepage   Email Custard   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.


Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Marvin the Martian

Interplanetary
# 4360

 - Posted      Profile for Marvin the Martian     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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?

--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar

Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Leprechaun

Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408

 - Posted      Profile for Leprechaun     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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?

Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76

 - Posted      Profile for Karl: Liberal Backslider   Author's homepage   Email Karl: Liberal Backslider   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
There is no commandment "Thou shalt not create a space-time continuum" as far as I know.

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

Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Faithful Sheepdog
Shipmate
# 2305

 - Posted      Profile for Faithful Sheepdog   Email Faithful Sheepdog   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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

--------------------
"Random mutation/natural selection works great in folks’ imaginations, but it’s a bust in the real world." ~ Michael J. Behe

Posts: 1097 | From: Scotland | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Psyduck

Ship's vacant look
# 2270

 - Posted      Profile for Psyduck   Author's homepage   Email Psyduck   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty.
"Lle rhyfedd i falchedd fod/Yw teiau ar y tywod." (Ieuan Brydydd Hir)

Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682

 - Posted      Profile for GreyFace   Email GreyFace   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402

 - Posted      Profile for Custard   Author's homepage   Email Custard   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.


Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Belle
Shipmate
# 4792

 - Posted      Profile for Belle   Email Belle   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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?

--------------------
where am I going... and why am I in this handbasket?

Posts: 318 | From: Kent, UK | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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]

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Psyduck

Ship's vacant look
# 2270

 - Posted      Profile for Psyduck   Author's homepage   Email Psyduck   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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?

--------------------
The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty.
"Lle rhyfedd i falchedd fod/Yw teiau ar y tywod." (Ieuan Brydydd Hir)

Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Leprechaun

Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408

 - Posted      Profile for Leprechaun     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

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

Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682

 - Posted      Profile for GreyFace   Email GreyFace   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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?

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Matt Black

Shipmate
# 2210

 - Posted      Profile for Matt Black   Email Matt Black   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
[edited for copyright violations -- for the love of Christ, WHY?!?]

[ 28. March 2006, 02:18: Message edited by: Erin ]

--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)

Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402

 - Posted      Profile for Custard   Author's homepage   Email Custard   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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!

--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.


Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Billfrid
Shipmate
# 7279

 - Posted      Profile for Billfrid   Email Billfrid   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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?

Posts: 58 | From: London UK | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Matt Black

Shipmate
# 2210

 - Posted      Profile for Matt Black   Email Matt Black   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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

--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)

Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Belle
Shipmate
# 4792

 - Posted      Profile for Belle   Email Belle   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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!

--------------------
where am I going... and why am I in this handbasket?

Posts: 318 | From: Kent, UK | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
leonato
Shipmate
# 5124

 - Posted      Profile for leonato   Email leonato   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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 ]

--------------------
leonato... Much Ado

Posts: 892 | From: Stage left | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
ONUnicorn
Shipmate
# 7331

 - Posted      Profile for ONUnicorn   Email ONUnicorn   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
*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???

--------------------
"A pig's snout is NOT an electrical outlet."

Posts: 637 | From: Indianapolis, IN | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Seeker963
Shipmate
# 2066

 - Posted      Profile for Seeker963   Author's homepage   Email Seeker963   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
"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
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365

 - Posted      Profile for Freddy   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
"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
Matt Black

Shipmate
# 2210

 - Posted      Profile for Matt Black   Email Matt Black   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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

--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)

Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Leprechaun

Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408

 - Posted      Profile for Leprechaun     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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!

Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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 ]

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

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

Orthodoxy
# 310

 - Posted      Profile for Father Gregory   Author's homepage   Email Father Gregory   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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!").

--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™

Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Psyduck

Ship's vacant look
# 2270

 - Posted      Profile for Psyduck   Author's homepage   Email Psyduck   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty.
"Lle rhyfedd i falchedd fod/Yw teiau ar y tywod." (Ieuan Brydydd Hir)

Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Psyduck

Ship's vacant look
# 2270

 - Posted      Profile for Psyduck   Author's homepage   Email Psyduck   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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]

--------------------
The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty.
"Lle rhyfedd i falchedd fod/Yw teiau ar y tywod." (Ieuan Brydydd Hir)

Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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...."

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
ONUnicorn
Shipmate
# 7331

 - Posted      Profile for ONUnicorn   Email ONUnicorn   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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 ]

--------------------
"A pig's snout is NOT an electrical outlet."

Posts: 637 | From: Indianapolis, IN | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Psyduck

Ship's vacant look
# 2270

 - Posted      Profile for Psyduck   Author's homepage   Email Psyduck   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
...or Psyducks...

--------------------
The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty.
"Lle rhyfedd i falchedd fod/Yw teiau ar y tywod." (Ieuan Brydydd Hir)

Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  ...  12  13  14 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools