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 6)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  ...  12  13  14 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Purgatory: This is the thread where we talk about Old Testament genocide.
Peppone
Marine
# 3855

 - Posted      Profile for Peppone   Email Peppone   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tuggboat:
And that includes all books that lead me to believe its alright to sin. They are in error.

And what are genocide, infanticide? Morally neutral acts?

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

[ 10. July 2004, 00:59: Message edited by: Peppone ]

--------------------
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      Profile for Tuggboat     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
It is holy and the Word of God, but you need to have some way to reconcile its internal contradictions. Do you simply deny that these exist? Or are they just beyond human understanding?
Freddy,
There are more than a few places I admit it is beyond my understanding. In fact without asking the Holy Spirit to teach and reveal the Word to me its almost all beyond me. I don't deny them though my simple faith may make it appear that way sometimes. I just don't argue with them in my mind. Instead I accept understanding as a gift, it is a reward on this Earth If I remember correctly for rightousness. It has its beginnings in Fear of the Lord. Its not of me or any teaching of men. I believe the Bible can explain and define itself also though I'm not sure this statement or anything like it is in the Bible I have found it to be true so far. The other assertions I just made are in there but I can't remember where.

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

Posts: 78 | From: Providence Forge, VA | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Tuggboat
Shipmate
# 7001

 - Posted      Profile for Tuggboat     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Peppone:
quote:
Originally posted by Tuggboat:
And that includes all books that lead me to believe its alright to sin. They are in error.

And what are genocide, infanticide? Morally neutral acts?

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

We must not put our own moral sense ahead of God's moral sense or he is not our God.

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

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

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

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

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


It would be hard for me to starve someone to death and think it was God's will.

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

Posts: 78 | From: Providence Forge, VA | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272

 - Posted      Profile for Ender's Shadow   Email Ender's Shadow   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Peppone:
quote:
Originally posted by Tuggboat:
And that includes all books that lead me to believe its alright to sin. They are in error.

And what are genocide, infanticide? Morally neutral acts?

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

Of course the traditional answer of the church has been that it can be right to do so - which is when it got involved in the Inquisition and civil wars for the faith (it's not just a bad habit of the Catholics!). I think I would argue now that it is not the role of the church, or of any of its members, to do that, on the grounds that there is the kingdom of Jesus is 'not of this world' so that it is the responsibility of the state in this age to punish, not the church.

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

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

[ 10. July 2004, 08:21: Message edited by: Ender's Shadow ]

--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.

Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.

Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
My conscience says that genocide is a terrible thing. No amount of convincing from any deity is going make me change my mind.

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

C

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 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 Peppone:
Here's a question, then, and not a rhetorical one. If you believed that God was telling you to destroy a pagan people- or maybe just one family- mother, father, maybe two kids- would you do it?

No, because it would conflict with what the Bible teaches for how Christians should live. I would try, with God's help, to correct that wrong belief.

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


Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Peppone
Marine
# 3855

 - Posted      Profile for Peppone   Email Peppone   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tuggboat:

I have a question for you Peppone, Would you defy him?

I refer you to Cheesy's eminently sensible answer.

I would add that, given you worship a God whose purposes are unknowable and who might at any time order you to kill someone- well, don't ever find yourself in the unfortunate position of getting within a thousand metres of me or my family.

--------------------
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
Peppone
Marine
# 3855

 - Posted      Profile for Peppone   Email Peppone   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tuggboat:
We must not put our own moral sense ahead of God's moral sense or he is not our God...

...It would be hard for me to starve someone to death and think it was God's will.

You're not as sure about this as you think you are, are you?

quote:

Would you die for him as he died for you.

Yes. As he died for me. In the same way as. As.

--------------------
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
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 Cheesy*:
My conscience says that genocide is a terrible thing. No amount of convincing from any deity is going make me change my mind.

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

C

By 'better', I take it you mean "the same".

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


Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Peppone
Marine
# 3855

 - Posted      Profile for Peppone   Email Peppone   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
quote:
Originally posted by Peppone:
Here's a question, then, and not a rhetorical one. If you believed that God was telling you to destroy a pagan people- or maybe just one family- mother, father, maybe two kids- would you do it?

it is the responsibility of the state in this age to punish, not the church.


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

I can't work out who's in more of a mess over this, you or tuggboat.

--------------------
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
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 Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Seeker963 - No and no. Liberal rationalism squares the circle - always if this site is anything to go by - by rationalizing away the killer God of the OT as our - as Israel - failed, distorted response to His self-disclosure to us.

I find your caricature of my caricature more of a caricature than I find mine.

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

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

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

God save us from people who think that God is telling them to kill other civilisations - that's exactly the kind of narcisstic thinking that got the West into Iraq. Talk about Satan masquerading as Good. It's the ultimate deception. Satan does not tempt the faithful with "Hey, let's go out and do evil". Satan tempts the faithful by convincing them Evil is good.

--------------------
"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
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272

 - Posted      Profile for Ender's Shadow   Email Ender's Shadow   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Peppone:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
quote:
Originally posted by Peppone:
Here's a question, then, and not a rhetorical one. If you believed that God was telling you to destroy a pagan people- or maybe just one family- mother, father, maybe two kids- would you do it?

it is the responsibility of the state in this age to punish, not the church.


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

I can't work out who's in more of a mess over this, you or tuggboat.

Ah - ok - whoops... the logic that the kingdom of Jesus is not of this world leads to a rejection of the persecution of pagans for being pagans. There is no longer the same role of the state as the enforcer of a specific monotheism that is granted to the 'state' in the time of Israel. So - no - I'm not proposing that pagans should be punished by the state - though I sort of see how you could see that I was [Hot and Hormonal]

--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.

Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.

Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Peppone
Marine
# 3855

 - Posted      Profile for Peppone   Email Peppone   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Sorry, man. I shouldn't have just jumped on your post like that...anyway, clearer now...

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

 - Posted      Profile for Freddy   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tuggboat:
Freddy:
quote:
It is holy and the Word of God, but you need to have some way to reconcile its internal contradictions. Do you simply deny that these exist? Or are they just beyond human understanding?
There are more than a few places I admit it is beyond my understanding. In fact without asking the Holy Spirit to teach and reveal the Word to me its almost all beyond me. I don't deny them though my simple faith may make it appear that way sometimes. I just don't argue with them in my mind.
This position is really fine with me. The point is that you believe in the Bible, you believe it to be true, you believe that it is written by God, and you believe that the way to peace is to hear and obey. I think this is the right way to go.

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

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

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

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

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

But I also believe that the first priority is to believe in the Word of God. [Votive]

--------------------
"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
Tuggboat
Shipmate
# 7001

 - Posted      Profile for Tuggboat     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Interestingly, Abraham's name for Jehovah, which was "Shaddai", means "the one who both causes trouble and who delivers from trouble." In many ways this is the God we still worship.

Yes it is a very tender nurturing name for God. All aspects of his personality are of course unknowable but this describes one who carried an infant nation at its conception through safely and lovingly. It is also a definition with some female aspects to it unlike other names for him. The core roots of the word suggest "many breasted one."

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

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

But apparently he does do war. He does stir things up a bit. "There will be wars and rumors of war" We may protect ourselves. He will deliver us from trouble.

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

Posts: 78 | From: Providence Forge, VA | Registered: May 2004  |  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 Tuggboat:
Yes it is a very tender nurturing name for God. All aspects of his personality are of course unknowable but this describes one who carried an infant nation at its conception through safely and lovingly. It is also a definition with some female aspects to it unlike other names for him. The core roots of the word suggest "many breasted one."

Sorry, you lost me there. I meant that "Shaddai" was NOT a good name for God, since God does not cause trouble - and Israel was quickly divested of that name. I'm also not understanding where all the breasts come in. You mean the Hebrew word suggests that?

In any case, holy fear and the willingness to obey are good things. Keep it up.

--------------------
"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
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
I'm also not understanding where all the breasts come in.

You've lost me.

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

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Tuggboat
Shipmate
# 7001

 - Posted      Profile for Tuggboat     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
spurious text It has been Masculine since the Septugent. Prior to that Rabbinical reference, the Targum noted the feminine aspects of words that sounded similar and speculated the Names very primitive roots had an approximate origin as I mentioned. Destroyer, mountain, she-day, almighty are among other translations I found.

šadday

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

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

I retract the statement because it is from spurious texts that are unsupported today by people much wiser than me. I apologize for the image and spurious reference. I cannot find the exact one at this time. I should stick to the Bible [Smile]

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

Posts: 78 | From: Providence Forge, VA | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
hermit
Shipmate
# 1803

 - Posted      Profile for hermit   Email hermit   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Peppone:
quote:
Originally posted by Tuggboat:
And that includes all books that lead me to believe its alright to sin. They are in error.

And what are genocide, infanticide? Morally neutral acts?

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

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

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

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

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

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

By the way, if I'm often brutal in my imagery and discussing life and death, it's to shock people into thinking about things they take for granted .... not to be trollish.

--------------------
"You called out loud and shattered my deafness. You were radiant and resplendent, you put to flight my blindness... You touched me, and I am set on fire to attain that peace which was yours." Confessions, St Augustine

Posts: 812 | From: Seattle | Registered: Nov 2001  |  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 Esmeralda:
quote:
Originally posted by ONUnicorn:
Okay, maybe I wasn't clear in my retelling of the story...

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

Your professor was wrong. Seriously wrong.


Damn straight he was.

How on Earth did they let him teach English?

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

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

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Probably because the people in charge of picking the English teachers don't know nuthin' 'bout no grammer neither.

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

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Alfred E. Neuman

What? Me worry?
# 6855

 - Posted      Profile for Alfred E. Neuman     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Hermit said:
quote:
<snip>...And then you would need to watch the news for a while to be sure you weren't hallucinating it.
I'm afraid this method of confirmation would be cause for more hallucinations. (at least for me)

--------------------
--Formerly: Gort--

Posts: 12954 | Registered: May 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 hermit:

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

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

But I wouldn't kill someone even if I was convinced that God was telling me to - well to be honest because I wouldn't ever believe God was telling me to. I don't believe in that type of extra canonical revelation - post Christ.
Just wanted to say that.

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 
Seeker963 - I ABSOLUTELY agree. There is no Christian basis for us persecuting let alone killing on God's behalf. At all. The dispensation has utterly changed. What was done in the Bronze Age under the Son's command is no model for Christians at all since the Son's ministry and death as a human. It is IMPOSSIBLE to kill in the name of Christ. We have our own authority for that.

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

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Weed
Shipmate
# 4402

 - Posted      Profile for Weed     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
I don't doubt your sincerity, your faith, your journey, Little Weed. And I retract nothing. It's no caricature. Liberal rationalism utterly fails dialectically, utterly fails to be confronted by God as He is revealed, as He reveals Himself without patronization: killer saviour. Cannot deal with Him at all. So does my pathetic humanity in many, many less worthy ways.

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

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

And hermit and Leprechaun, people are infinitely precious and irreplaceable. You are similarly free to consider your own lives worthless because of the afterlife but please do not apply this attitude to other people’s lives.

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

Posts: 519 | From: UK | Registered: Apr 2003  |  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 Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Seeker963 - I ABSOLUTELY agree. There is no Christian basis for us persecuting let alone killing on God's behalf. At all. The dispensation has utterly changed. What was done in the Bronze Age under the Son's command is no model for Christians at all since the Son's ministry and death as a human. It is IMPOSSIBLE to kill in the name of Christ. We have our own authority for that.

Good to agree on something. [Yipee]

--------------------
"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
hermit
Shipmate
# 1803

 - Posted      Profile for hermit   Email hermit   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Well, Leprechaun, the quote you posted was actually by Peppone as quoted later by me, but your responce was quite good nonetheless. I think under the New Covenant any such questions about "what if God commanded us to kill a little girl with big sorry eyes" are so hypothetical as to be on the order of "what if pigs could sprout wings and fly" type questions (what is it with me and pigs lately?). The only thing I'm getting at is that it's not completely impossible that the genocides of the OT literally happened, although I somewhat doubt them myself. It's a slippery slope kinda thing with me ....

The "its/it's" dogma always has irritated me. They should BOTH be spelled with an apostrophe if English were completely rational, but fortunately it's not and someone with wealth and influence decided to change it to the current system a long time ago, perhaps after tiring of his tutors correcting him constantly as a youth.

--------------------
"You called out loud and shattered my deafness. You were radiant and resplendent, you put to flight my blindness... You touched me, and I am set on fire to attain that peace which was yours." Confessions, St Augustine

Posts: 812 | From: Seattle | Registered: Nov 2001  |  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 hermit:
The "its/it's" dogma always has irritated me. They should BOTH be spelled with an apostrophe if English were completely rational,

Ah, so the pronoun would match hi's, her's, their's, your's, and our's?

--------------------
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 Esmeralda:

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

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

Admittedly, the point of those two movies is trying to get us to think about this question, and trying to get us to feel guilty about it, and to not invent such a thing to begin with because it would create these sorts of moral dilemmas, but still... we don't feel guilty now. Why should it be wrong for our Creator to eliminate what no longer pleases Him?

Posts: 637 | From: Indianapolis, IN | Registered: Jun 2004  |  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 ONUnicorn:
Why should it be wrong for our Creator to eliminate what no longer pleases Him?

Because He created us in His image and loves us as his own children?

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

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Tuggboat
Shipmate
# 7001

 - Posted      Profile for Tuggboat     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Groups around the worldare using the original posts argument in interesting and novel ways.

I've found on the web.

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

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

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

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

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

His plan was bigger than just the Jews.

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

Posts: 78 | From: Providence Forge, VA | Registered: May 2004  |  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 Tuggboat:
His plan was bigger than just the Jews.

Believe me, the Orthodox know that.

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

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Weed
Shipmate
# 4402

 - Posted      Profile for Weed     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tuggboat:
They support this with an incomplete definition of genocide similar to the OP. It can be beat by undermining the primary premise with an expanded definition of genocide like I was trying to do earlier on this page.

Unfortunately for that argument, Tuggboat, you can't describe what God is reported to have told Joshua as anything other than genocide. It falls plainly within the definition agreed by the international community in the Genocide Convention.

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

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

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

(And unfortunately if I say any more about biblical interpretation as I want to we'll be shunted off to the Dead Horses thread.)

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

Posts: 519 | From: UK | Registered: Apr 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 
quote:
Originally posted by Little Weed:
Everyone in the world, apart from a few genocidal tyrants, considers it wrong.

Is there a host around? I'm sure that counts as a personal attack.... [Biased]

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

[ 11. July 2004, 07:18: Message edited by: Custard123 ]

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


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

Twisted fire starter
# 2782

 - Posted      Profile for Pheonix   Email Pheonix   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Little Weed:

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

Yeah, but you're still judging people of 3000-4000 years ago by the standards and morals of today. I'm not saying the bible makes easy reading on those areas, but society and way of life was so much different then. As other people have stated the only way to stop blood feuds carrying on was to eradicate anyone who could fight, or who could produce people to fight oor those who might fight in the future... Unfortunately that means men, women and children. Is it right by our standards of today? No. Was it right then? How can we know without being there? Was it the way war worked in those days? Most probably.
Posts: 2384 | From: on the move. | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
Weed
Shipmate
# 4402

 - Posted      Profile for Weed     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Custard123:
quote:
Originally posted by Little Weed:
Everyone in the world, apart from a few genocidal tyrants, considers it wrong.

Is there a host around? I'm sure that counts as a personal attack.... [Biased]

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

My apologies. For "world" please read "secular world". I did go on to call people with opposing views on this thread "good" and I thought it was clear what I was saying. I have never intentionally attacked anyone, only their views.

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

Posts: 519 | From: UK | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Weed
Shipmate
# 4402

 - Posted      Profile for Weed     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pheonix:
Yeah, but you're still judging people of 3000-4000 years ago by the standards and morals of today. I'm not saying the bible makes easy reading on those areas, but society and way of life was so much different then. As other people have stated the only way to stop blood feuds carrying on was to eradicate anyone who could fight, or who could produce people to fight oor those who might fight in the future... Unfortunately that means men, women and children. Is it right by our standards of today? No. Was it right then? How can we know without being there? Was it the way war worked in those days? Most probably.

I don't think God changed his morals in the space of 3000 years. I think Joshua did believe that his people were the chosen ones and that God wanted them to massacre whole tribes - men, women, children - so that the chosen people could live in a particular geographical location that was more productive agriculturally. I am not however constrained by a particular way of interpreting the bible to say that it accurately represented a message directly from God. I understand the inerrantist point of view but it wasn't part of my mainstream evangelical upbringing and I have seen no reason to adopt it now.

To those who believe that the Book of Joshua is the literal truth, how do you reconcile it with the first few chapters of Judges?

--------------------
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 Tuggboat:
Groups around the worldare using the original posts argument in interesting and novel ways...<snip>

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

Excuse me?

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

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

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

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

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

[ 11. July 2004, 08:44: Message edited by: Wood ]

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

Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272

 - Posted      Profile for Ender's Shadow   Email Ender's Shadow   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
We have to be careful here Wood - it is absolutely unambiguous from both the Old and New Testaments that God does explicitly judge people in the here and now for their actions in this world. The most extreme case of this is of course the story of Herod in Acts 12

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

Not a passage that gets preached very often!

So it is clear that God is not constrained by the same rules as we are. So your hypocriscy argument is clearly not applicable.

--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.

Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.

Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Goldfish Stew
Shipmate
# 5512

 - Posted      Profile for Goldfish Stew   Email Goldfish Stew   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Part of the issue here for me is how God is revealed through Christ. Yes, we have a serious God. He's not all fluffy-ducklings. But in Luke 6:35-36 we have Jesus talking about being kind to our enemies because "...you will be the sons of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful."

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

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

Kiwi

*it's = it is. Even a grammatical ignoramus such as myself knows that.

--------------------
.

Posts: 2405 | From: Aotearoa/New Zealand | Registered: Feb 2004  |  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 kiwigoldfish:
Where does genocide fit into that? In the Joshua tale we either have a God who is not merciful (or shows no evidence of mercy at this point in time) - which is at odds with Jesus' revelation of the Father, or we have a military commander trying to please God in the way he saw fit - realising that God was holy but not realising how merciful He is. Or we have numerous other scernarios I guess, but these seem to me to be the main options.

Or we have a military commander being led by a god who is not actually God Himself, but who only represents Him. And quite imperfectly. But nevertheless perfectly enough to take His place in a temporary kind of way.

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

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

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

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

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

So those aren't the only two scenarios, or even the main ones. God did not order genocide, but He allowed Himself to be portrayed that way for the purpose of humanity's long-term salvation.

--------------------
"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
Trudy Scrumptious

BBE Shieldmaiden
# 5647

 - Posted      Profile for Trudy Scrumptious   Author's homepage   Email Trudy Scrumptious   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
The ultimate value of life as we know it now is a product of atheistic philosophy, and while a given of our society now I'm not sure it should be for a Christian. At the very least our philosophy of the value of life needs to be based on reasoning from the "image of God" rather than as a given - because as I have pointed out before there are plenty of recent societies that haven't seen it as a given at all - atheism or at least practical atheism can justify either the value of life, or it's complete worthlessness.
To be honest, and this isn't a dig but merely an observation, in an environment that is (rightly) suspiscious of the effect of the enlightenment on the Christian faith, I am surprised that this particular product has been accepted so unquestioningly in this discussion.

Do we know for sure, though, that the value we place on human life is a product of atheistic philosophy? How do we know it's not a product of 2000 years of Christianity, and it's just taken that long for it to sink into our thick human skulls -- that we are all valuable in the eyes of God? As you point out, an atheist philosophy can be used to justify placing ultimate value on human life--or placing no value on it at all. History suggests that Christianity can be used in either of the same two ways...but at least in the case of Christianity, we have a text to work from which preserves the words of our Founder, who said that not one sparrow falls to the ground without our Father, and that each of us is of far more value than many sparrows.

--------------------
Books and things.

I lied. There are no things. Just books.

Posts: 7428 | From: Closer to Paris than I am to Vancouver | Registered: Mar 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 TrudyTrudy (I say unto you):
Do we know for sure, though, that the value we place on human life is a product of atheistic philosophy? How do we know it's not a product of 2000 years of Christianity, and it's just taken that long for it to sink into our thick human skulls -- that we are all valuable in the eyes of God?

Sorry - I haven't made myself clear. I do believe in the value of human life, and that people have no right to take life away from one another. But I believe in that because I believe we are God's image bearers - it is God's ultimate value, that gives us our value in his image. (that's why I believe, for example, that killing babies is far worse than killing slugs)
But as my view of the value of human life is dervaitive of my view of the value of God, it therefore means that I believe God has the right to give and take life in a way that we do not. Which is why I don't accept that a morally right God wouldn't or couldn't take life away from people. (which, I think, is the presupposition underlying a lot of this thread)
Sorry, that still feels a bit garbled, but I can't think of how to improve my expression of it.
Also, on why I think it's not just something in the Bible sinking in - well I'm just pointing out that Christians started to believe this, and struggle with the passages in question after the Enlightenment, which I don't think is coincidental.

Hermit - sorry for misattributing that quote to you.

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 
Little Weed

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

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


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

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

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

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

[ 11. July 2004, 15:18: Message edited by: Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard ]

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

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  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 Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Do you accept that God is accurately revealed as a killer and take exception to Him, therefore you confront Him? As Abraham and Moses did and we all should? How long, oh Lord?

I do not think that God is accurately revealed as a loving killer in the bible. I think that God was inaccurately interpreted to be a "loving killer" (sic) and that inaccurate perception was recorded in scripture.

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

--------------------
"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
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Ok, Lep. I admit, I'm now completely confused.

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

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

Genocide is just plain wrong, dammit.

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

C

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  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 Ender's Shadow:
We have to be careful here Wood - it is absolutely unambiguous from both the Old and New Testaments that God does explicitly judge people in the here and now for their actions in this world. The most extreme case of this is of course the story of Herod in Acts 12

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

Not a passage that gets preached very often!

So it is clear that God is not constrained by the same rules as we are. So your hypocrisy argument is clearly not applicable.

Um, it may indeed not be applicable, but this passage isn't the one that proves me wrong.

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

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

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

I've got to say, so far, apart from some of the stuff Psyduck wrote, it's only the clever ex post facto rationalisation I cribbed from Augustine makes any sense to me so far. Which is depressing, because that isn't without its holes.

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

Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Seeker963. Why am I, therefore, dangerous? I do not condone, AT ALL, killing in God's name, homophobia, racism, agism (takes bottle that - no mute E), sexism etc, etc. I see liberal rationalism as equally dangerous in the long run as Calvinist inerrantism. Inerrantism is a broad church. Mine is informed by science and grace.

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

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  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 Cheesy*:
Ok, Lep. I admit, I'm now completely confused.

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

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

Genocide is just plain wrong, dammit.


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

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

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

Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I don't know, Lep. I don't think God is like that.

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

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

Hope thats a bit clearer.

C

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  ...  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