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   » Kerygmania: What do we do with the cursing psalms? (Page 3)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Kerygmania: What do we do with the cursing psalms?
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 
quote:
Originally posted by Lori:
I know nothing, so this is very much my unknowledgeable thoughts only.

But when I read about, 'Happy is he who dashes babies' heads against the rocks,' I think well at least this writer knew exactly what he was really praying for when he wanted evil to be destroyed. That, in this instance, it would mean even killing the young ones.

But that's a contradiction. Killing babies is itself a monstrous evil, so evil would not be destroyed but perpetuated.

quote:
Seems to me it is all to easy to pray, 'Oh Lord, stop this evil/injustice/immorality,' or, 'Please God, show them the error of their ways,' without ever thinking through how this could or would be accomplished. Even right down to the neighbourhood level. If Mr. Drug Taker down the road gets off drugs, how will Mrs. Drug Taker relate to him now? What will happen to her? What will happen to their children? What if he only gets off drugs once he is arrested? What happens to the wife and children then? What if they lose their house? What if she cannot cope? What if the children end up in care? 'Happy are they who render children parentless...'?????

I take the end of Psalm 137 as 'Think about what you are praying for......'

Because achieving the objective ain't always pretty.

But there's no point in achieving it if it involves doing more evil.

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

Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256

 - Posted      Profile for Nigel M   Email Nigel M   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
All this highlights an interesting issue: What is the Christian rationale for interpreting texts?

This thread grew out of another, where Barnabas62 put his finger on an important question:-
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
...there is a really important general issue of Biblical Interpretation here. Here's the deep issue.

Is it possible to hold to the principle that scripture is authoritative and inspired (that's not the same as inerrant) and yet be open to the possibility that some stuff in the Bible stinks!

My personal answer to that is "yes". There are plenty of "stinky bits" in the OT for example, whose only real value today can be that they serve as an example of how not to think and behave.

Reference was made then to the Psalm 137:9 text (dashing babies against rocks). I’d like to push B62’s question further and explore another answer. Much of the debate on the two threads is based, it seems to me, on two unstated assumptions:

1] 'We are Christians; we have a loving code to live by; we find un-loving texts in the Bible; therefore, although they are biblical, they are somehow not Christian.'

2] 'This is God's Word; therefore God is trying to speak to me through this text.'

When the Christian reader aligns these two assumptions, it is with a real desire to find a relevant significance that takes the text seriously, yet does so in accordance with the perceived rule that any such significance must be loving (or at least in harmony with the New Testament’s teaching on love).

I sense something almost schizophrenic when we approach the ‘stinky’ texts this way. We do not want to jettison them because they are in God’s Word, yet we cannot accept them at face value because they are not ‘Christian.’ The result? An attempt to find an alternative reading method that we do not utilise anywhere else in the Bible.

It’s somewhat similar to the way many Christians cope with injustice in their lives: they cannot blame God (who is loving), yet they have a burning sense of injustice – anger even – and it has to be offloaded somewhere; enter the Devil stage left to take the brunt of our fury in prayer. That way we are not blaming the human who was the direct cause of the injustice (we can still love the sinner), but are able to storm hells’ gates (the very definition of sin). I am well aware that some Christians enter a state of hatred when they pray in this fashion.

Now, I accept the existence of a devil and powers behind the throne. If I had to label myself (I ‘hate’ labels; they’re so unjust!), I’d opt for ‘evangelical charismatic’, so I cope well with the biblical teaching in this area. However, I would like to offer an alternative way to interpreting the Bible, especially those ‘inconvenient’ texts in the Old Testament, which allows us to ‘read’ in a normative fashion across the Scriptures.

I think I mentioned this on another thread, but I see absolutely nothing wrong (or un-Christian) with the likes of Psalm 137:9. If we put ourselves in the shoes of the author of that text – imagine the anguish that accompanies him in the aftermath of the fall of Jerusalem, know that he has grown up with a view of God that involves characteristics like ‘justice’, covenant faithfulness, the goodness of creation, humans in the image of God and so on – then recognise that we have a God-given in-built sense of justice and injustice, and then see that we cannot divorce the acts associated with human rebellion (sin) from the rebel himself or herself. If God is faithful to his creation, he will be somewhat annoyed when people mar it in any way. The approach taken by the Psalmist is as one of God’s people who reflects the indignation God feels for those who rebel and damage his creation and especially any of his ‘images.’

I don’t sense much in the way of “love the sinner, hate the sin” in the Bible. It reminds me a bit of the issue of gun ownership in the USA and that slogan, “It’s not guns that kill people, it’s people that kill people.” Divorcing the weapon from the user is only half the truth, of course; in reality it’s people with guns who kill people. Both objects need dealing with. So with sin: it’s not just sin that mars, it’s the sinner who sins that mars creation. Both need tackling and we cannot be schizophrenic in our approach.

And so with interpretation. Christians are the people of God, just as the authors of the difficult texts were. God is the same God then as now. If an author in the 6th century BC had a passionate sense of injustice and if God superintended the writing and collection of Scripture to include that passion, then should we not be able to feel the same now when we sense injustice? Should not we be expected to speak out against the perpetrators of injustice or even to rant at God when things go wrong? Should we refrain from divorcing the angst from the love in the Bible?

I realise that I have left plenty of hostages to fortune here and I don’t doubt that people will say, “Ah, but what about this text...” Happy to debate! Essentially, however, at root I see the problem lies with our definition of that terribly shallow but broad word “love” in English.

Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
Moo

Ship's tough old bird
# 107

 - Posted      Profile for Moo   Email Moo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Here is a post I made on the other thread about Psalm 137.

Moo

--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.

Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Lynn MagdalenCollege
Shipmate
# 10651

 - Posted      Profile for Lynn MagdalenCollege   Author's homepage   Email Lynn MagdalenCollege   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
From a long time ago, in a galaxy far far away...
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
Sorry it has taken me awhile to get back and respond to some of these posts.
quote:
Posted by Freddy:
I agree. Recognition helps to remove its power over me. But how is "diffuse" different from "kill"? Aren't they just two ways of referring to a similar idea?

Perhaps, as both are metaphors for something going on internally, but the language we use either expresses the way we think or influences it. In this case, to say kill in reference to a part of myself is a destructive and dualistic image, suggesting that there is a part of me that is just "bad" and needs to be destroyed.

However, when I use the term "diffuse" I am saying that there are things that I do which may have negative consequences, and these need to be redirected or reassessed. I am not talking as if something was inherently wrong with me.

Thanks for clarifying; this is a place where we really disagree about our fundamental nature: I think there IS something inherently wrong with every human being and that it needs to be killed, to be "crucified with Christ." To me, "diffuse" indicates watering down and spreading out, which seems exactly wrong to me - but perhaps DarkKnight meant something more like "vent," you know, get rid of the head of steam before the whole thing blows?
quote:
In relation to these Psalms, my understanding is this: rather than stewing on these deep feelings of anger and hatred, either forcing them deeper inside to boil and simmer away or exploding outward into anger, physical violence or homicide, the Psalmist acts to get those feelings and thoughts out, away from him/her, to where they can do no damage to him/herself or anyone else...<snip>...

I hope my response to Freddy clarifies my view. I realise the metaphors you have chosen are biblical ones (wood hay and stubble etc) I am just not sure what to make of them anymore. I remain convinced that crucifixion- either self or by someone else (please understand I am speaking metaphorically, as in crucifying parts of yourself or someone else that are "sinful") is not the path to wholeness.

As I said, thanks for clarifying; we stand in pretty much opposite positions: I believe it's the only path to wholeness for a Christian.

Barnabas, clearly I'm not speaking of any part of us which falls under the description of "made in the image of God" but the sin nature, that Jer. 17:9 part - "The heart is more deceitful than all else And is desperately sick; Who can understand it?" I remember being so offended when I first read that scripture: what do you mean, my heart is lovely! [Hot and Hormonal]

A few weeks ago we were translating the beginning of Psalm 137 in my Hebrew class, so I took the opportunity to ask the rabbi about this later portion; he was very straightforward: these are people brutally taken in captivity, they've seen parents, children, leaders mercilessly slaughtered by their enemy and they're expressing a very human desire to see their enemy "get theirs." And yes, it resonates with the uncomfortable justice of God.

Nigel, I don't assume that all scripture needs to be read in the kindly light of the love of Christ; I think God really puts some hard stuff out there and we are invited to wrestle with it. God spends a lot of time teaching me about tension, that it's not all one way or the other, that He encompasses the whole universe.
quote:
It’s somewhat similar to the way many Christians cope with injustice in their lives: they cannot blame God (who is loving), yet they have a burning sense of injustice – anger even – and it has to be offloaded somewhere; enter the Devil stage left to take the brunt of our fury in prayer. That way we are not blaming the human who was the direct cause of the injustice (we can still love the sinner), but are able to storm hells’ gates (the very definition of sin). I am well aware that some Christians enter a state of hatred when they pray in this fashion.
This is very personal territory for me, how to reconcile God (more than allowing but actually directing something which ultimately lead to waste, destruction, injustice. In that particular instance, I believe God did direct the initial decisions and then I didn't do a particularly good job with follow-through. This is common throughout scripture: we start in obedience and then stumble (which resonates with Judges, imho).
quote:
I don’t sense much in the way of “love the sinner, hate the sin” in the Bible. It reminds me a bit of the issue of gun ownership in the USA and that slogan, “It’s not guns that kill people, it’s people that kill people.” Divorcing the weapon from the user is only half the truth, of course; in reality it’s people with guns who kill people. Both objects need dealing with. So with sin: it’s not just sin that mars, it’s the sinner who sins that mars creation. Both need tackling and we cannot be schizophrenic in our approach.
I think John 8, Jesus and the woman taken in adultery, is the model of that attitude: yes, the woman has broken the law and deserves to be stoned but He is very aware of the games being played in the background (e.g., where is the man? No one commit adultery alone--) and He is not willing to be falsely engaged. Throw in the fact that Judea no longer had the right to exercise capital punishment independent of Rome (which explains Pontius Pilate's presence during Holy Week) and He would be in a whole other kind of trouble if He jumped up and said, "You're right! Let's stone her!"

The church has become really bad at saying, "Go and sin no more," while we emphasize the "Neither will I condemn you" portion of the scripture. I thoroughly agree with your assessment of our struggle to rightly comprehend the word "love."

--------------------
Erin & Friend; Been there, done that; Ruth musical

Posts: 6263 | From: California | Registered: Nov 2005  |  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 
Nigel - I don't get it. How can wanting to murder innocent babies "resonate with the justice of God"? Perhaps I'm terminally stupid, but anyone who thinks they are seeing their enemies "getting their own" by murdering their children has totally lost it. If I ever found myself thinking that I'd know that my soul had died.

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

Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  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 
quote:
yes, the woman has broken the law and deserves to be stoned
No. People do not, as far as I can see, deserve to be painfully executed for adultery. That's also monstrous.

Yes, I know Deuteronomy says they do. I have to conclude, because I can't conclude any other way, that on this point Deuteronomy is wrong. It does pain me to say this, because even in my backsliding days the idea that this is in some sense the "word of God" remains, but what else can I do? My conscience cannot let me say "oh, I must be wrong and this is just"; it simply isn't, any more than twenty years in prison for nicking a pen would be.

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

Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Alaric the Goth
Shipmate
# 511

 - Posted      Profile for Alaric the Goth     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Adultery is there in the ‘Thou shalt not section of the Ten Commandments just two away (if that’s of any significance whatsoever) from ‘Thou shalt not kill/murder’. Now some of us believe/have at times believed that the death penalty is appropriate for murder (or maybe limited to some types of killing, like mass murder/ child murder). I know that you consistently disagree with this penalty (I have changed my mind on it at least twice). You are perhaps being more consistent than some Christians who would say ‘yes’ to execution of a murderer but ‘no’ to doing the same to an adulterer, despite the Biblical (OT) basis for both to be punished by death.
Posts: 3322 | From: West Thriding | Registered: Jun 2001  |  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 
To be fair, death penalty advocates will point to the Noachian covenant on that one as well. I don't necessarily think therefore that they're inconsistent, despite still disagreeing with them.

Largely I'm informed by a visceral negative reaction to killing people. I struggle to see that as a bad thing, although plenty of people have hinted in the past that it is.

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

Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256

 - Posted      Profile for Nigel M   Email Nigel M   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Nigel - I don't get it. How can wanting to murder innocent babies "resonate with the justice of God"? Perhaps I'm terminally stupid, but anyone who thinks they are seeing their enemies "getting their own" by murdering their children has totally lost it. If I ever found myself thinking that I'd know that my soul had died.

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
...even in my backsliding days the idea that this is in some sense the "word of God" remains, but what else can I do? My conscience cannot let me say "oh, I must be wrong and this is just"; it simply isn't, any more than twenty years in prison for nicking a pen would be.

Karl,

There are two aspects to this that I think are relevant and might be helpful:
1] Interpretations that rely on literalistic readings of Scripture; and
2] Interpretations of God’s justice.

I avoided using the word ‘literal’ reading above because it is possible to read the entire Bible literally, in the sense that this is what the author literally intended. Literalistic readings are the ones that read without taking into account that the author ‘literally’ intended his work at a particular point to be understood figuratively, rhetorically, etc. It is a ‘literal’ reading that I argue in favour of.

I agree with you Karl that a desire to destroy babies is not apparently in accord with God’s justice, and on [1] above perhaps Ps. 137:9 is not the best example to use for my case because the language there is pretty rhetorical and I am not aware of any Christian who would read it as an ordnance to commit infanticide against one’s enemies. Nearer the mark, perhaps, is the type of language reading associated with the likes of Fred Phelps (God hates sin; God says being gay is a sin; therefore God hates gays – and the language of hate is therefore appropriate for Christians to use).

As the OP relates to the cursing Psalms, though, I’ll stick with Ps. 137 here and see if I can apply my reasoning – we’ll need to assume for the sake of the argument that there are Christians who would read verse 9 literalistically. I’ll skip over the obvious historical allusions to warfare practices at the time, because I don’t think you are concerned about that (I’m assuming it’s a given that these practices were not uncommon). The issue is whether this text can be used in a Christian sense. If it can’t, then I understand the problem you face: do we ignore it as being an historical irrelevance (in which case we jettison the idea that the Bible in its fullness is a mode for God’s guidance); or do we jettison the text itself (in which case we call into question the canonical process). If we aim to find a Christian meaning in the text, do we spiritualise it (e.g., ‘this is a picture of Christ vs the Devil’...); do we take it as an example of how not to behave; or do we read some other way?

Obviously I’m gunning for the ‘some other way’. I want to take seriously the fact that we feel injustice building up in us when something unfair happens. This is a human trait and allied to it is the emotion of anger. I would say that these are, in fact, reflections of God’s image – yes, even the anger. It needs dealing with in some way. Consequently, when I read verse 9, I am putting myself on the one hand in the shoes of the human author who felt that injustice and anger and, on the other hand, seeing that this is a reflection of how God feels when faced with anything that mars his creation. All of this forms part of the concept of God’s justice. He has to act against evil because he cannot stand by and watch his creation suffering. For me, this is the essence of a ‘loving’ God. Not to be angry is to shrug one’s shoulders, baton down any feelings of injustice and let evil has its way.

Now, how does this pan out in relation to human beings? You’ll have seen that I am not really convinced about the “hate the sin, love the sinner” approach, because I think the Bible emphasises the need for sinners to be dealt with – there has to be a repentance and a new path to follow, as well as a naming and shaming of the sin itself. Desiring to bash babies on the rocks – paying back what they deserve (as Lamentations 3:64 puts it) – is only one part of the bible that expresses this. The other part is that which holds open the offer of repentance, should the perpetrator admit that s/he was in the wrong and is willing to ‘sin no more.’

It was precisely because I wanted to read the bible with a consistent methodology throughout, while taking seriously the need to read texts in accordance with their genre, that I have come to this point. Not sure that I am expressing things well enough, though.

Nigel

Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006  |  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 
This is my problem here, Nigel, that
quote:
Desiring to bash babies on the rocks
is absolutely NOT
quote:
paying back what they deserve
Thing is, many people seem to major that killing babies is a terrible thing to do to the parents. It is. But it's also a terrible thing to do to the babies, and this is where my problem is. How can making babies suffer to punish the parents be anything but evil?

[ 11. May 2007, 12:42: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]

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

Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  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 
[missed edit window]

To put it another way, my problem here is not the anger, nor the desire to "get back" at the perpetrators. It's the desire to do it by killing innocent third parties, and infants at that. If someone did that today we'd lock them up, throw away the key and all post in Hell about how evil they were and how we'd all like ten minutes with them and a knife etc. etc. etc.

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

Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 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 Karl: Liberal Backslider:
To put it another way, my problem here is not the anger, nor the desire to "get back" at the perpetrators. It's the desire to do it by killing innocent third parties, and infants at that.

Karl, reading through the thread, I notice that you have made this point repeatedly. I agree with you completely.

Earlier, you said that you ascribe these kinds of statements to imperfect revelation. That is, that God could not possibly have intended or authored these things. Again, I agree with you.

--------------------
"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
Moo

Ship's tough old bird
# 107

 - Posted      Profile for Moo   Email Moo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
To put it another way, my problem here is not the anger, nor the desire to "get back" at the perpetrators. It's the desire to do it by killing innocent third parties, and infants at that. If someone did that today we'd lock them up, throw away the key and all post in Hell about how evil they were and how we'd all like ten minutes with them and a knife etc. etc. etc.

I agree that killing babies in revenge for the actions of their adult relatives is monstrous. However people in Biblical times (not just the Jews) did not see it that way.

The legal code of some country (Babylonia?) specified that if a man killed someone else's daughter, his own daughter should be killed.

This is not the way we see it nowadays, and I think all efforts to reconcile it with modern thinking are doomed to failure.

Moo

--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.

Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256

 - Posted      Profile for Nigel M   Email Nigel M   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
This is my problem here, Nigel, that
quote:
Desiring to bash babies on the rocks
is absolutely NOT
quote:
paying back what they deserve
Thing is, many people seem to major that killing babies is a terrible thing to do to the parents. It is. But it's also a terrible thing to do to the babies, and this is where my problem is. How can making babies suffer to punish the parents be anything but evil?

To put it another way, my problem here is not the anger, nor the desire to "get back" at the perpetrators. It's the desire to do it by killing innocent third parties, and infants at that. If someone did that today we'd lock them up, throw away the key and all post in Hell about how evil they were and how we'd all like ten minutes with them and a knife etc. etc. etc.

Yes, this particular Psalm was always going to be a bad example because I know of no-one who reads across in a literalistic fashion from verse 9 to a Christian lifestyle guide (well, I don’t) in a sort of, “Dash Babies Against Rocks” => “Go Thou And Do Likewise” fashion. The rhetoric in the passage (vv8-9) makes clear that if anyone does the act it is not the author; rather the focus is on the lucky soldiers who will eventually deal with Babylon on a like-for-like basis.

So there is no command here for God’s people to commit infanticide in certain circumstances. What it does support, though, as I see it, is God’s people feeling able to approach God with their desires, however black they may seem – when they are based on feelings of injustice. It also, I sense, allows for proclamation in the community generally. This is one of the attributes of the Psalms as a whole, I think. More generally, as I said earlier, the texts reflect the justice of God in the sense that injustice needs dealing with. Again, that is not saying that verse 9 is specifically (literalistically) advocating reparation along the lines of a baby for a baby.

I agree that if I was to express on a whim a desire to knock off a few babies, I would attract the attention of several “support” services in the community (or at least, I should...). If, however, I had suffered an injustice – perhaps seen my family slaughtered in a genocide campaign – then the emotions that rise should and can be taken to God and to the community. There’s an element of the prophetic in Psalm 137:9 similar to that in the prophetic texts themselves, it’s just that in practice I think the kind of rhetorical speaking we see in verse 8 and 9 is alien to British modes of language use. Much more common in some other cultures; I think the Bible language is closer to the ‘other’ than the ‘us’ in this regard.

Your take on this, I assume, is that it is never now right for Christians to express the kind of desire we find in verse 9. Actually, I agree; but my take focuses on the use of language in Psalm 137, how we can deal with it and how it might reflect something of God in the process. It's more about how we read the Bible than anything else.

Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006  |  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 
They are, but my point is that God, presumably, sees such "justice" as monstrous (I really, really, hope He does). I just which He'd said so somehow. Leaving the psalm as it is seems to me to approve such attitudes.

But I've often said if I were God I'd have done things differently.

[reply to Moo]

[ 11. May 2007, 15:14: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]

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

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

Ship's tough old bird
# 107

 - Posted      Profile for Moo   Email Moo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
They are, but my point is that God, presumably, sees such "justice" as monstrous (I really, really, hope He does). I just which He'd said so somehow. Leaving the psalm as it is seems to me to approve such attitudes.

I have come to like the fact that the Bible is so full of bad human tendencies. That means there's hope for me. [Smile]

Moo

--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.

Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Pooks
Shipmate
# 11425

 - Posted      Profile for Pooks     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

... It's the desire to do it by killing innocent third parties, and infants at that.

I think that is a reflection of someone with a desire for vengeance based on imperfect human nature fueled by pain and Grief (PTSD?) and the cultural context at the time, which is different from justice. I have observed that people often don't think that justice meted out is good enough for the perpetrator, they want vengeance because they want compensation for the pain they have suffered as well. FWIW, I think that God wants us to be honest about how we feel but what we DO is another matter. From what I understand, 'Eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth' is not about God sactioning vengeance with gladness, but it is saying, 'if you have to exact vengeance, make sure you don't do more than what was done to you.' Precisely to stop the kind of things that might be done when a victim was fuelled with pain and grief that the psalmist was expressing and to stop any escalation when people are seeing red.
Posts: 1547 | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
Bullfrog.

Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014

 - Posted      Profile for Bullfrog.   Email Bullfrog.   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I think that psalm is a very human work. It's not God writing it, it's a person screaming at God saying "Look at those assholes! Look what they did to me!" It's a very human response to extreme oppression, and as such I think it has space.

Also, it might be safer to put those sorts of things into words than to bottle them up and save them for future actions. Singing about it might be a form of release to prevent one from actually doing the act described.

The earlier verses also speak of a very strong attachment to God. If you could detach that feeling from the natural Freudian hatred of outsiders, I think it could very powerful stuff.

I visited a class on the psalms that talked about finding uses for the darker ones. I think the gist was that when a person is in deep grief or despair, it's good to understand that there is space for that in religion. The need for revenge is a natural reaction, and while it's not ideal, it's not something you can really stop. Justified anger is a very real thing. But once you acknowledge it, you have to figure out what to do with it. That's the difference, I think, between Jesus and the psalmist. Jesus took it all to the cross and let it die with him. But getting there can be hard, and not all of us are so gifted.

Again, I think it might be better to let such feelings vent themselves in word and song than to cling to them internally or try to suppress them as if they weren't there.

--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg

Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006  |  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 Moo:
I agree that killing babies in revenge for the actions of their adult relatives is monstrous. However people in Biblical times (not just the Jews) did not see it that way.

I agree with this, and I think that this is what makes the bridge between Karl's point - that God could not possibly favor these things - and the fact that they are in the book supposedly authored by God. There is a huge contradiction there.

It is not easily resolved.

As I have said above, I resolve it by supposing that God used these ancient people's values, however mistaken they may have been, and worked with them to make His points. In this way He guided them gradually away from their former ideas.

At the same time - and this is the real key, I think - He only allowed things to happen and to be written that could symbolize true justice, even if the thing itself was actually unjust. So talking about killing babies, while actually barbaric, could symbolize the desire to eliminate even small sins. Similarly, wiping out whole populations, while heinous in the highest degree, could symbolize the destruction of wickedness. Similarly, practices like animal sacrifice and circumcision, having no true connection to godliness, could be seen as extremely central to their worship. They could symbolize godliness without actually being godliness. This is how ancient religion often worked all over the world.

This then justifies the biblical account without justifying the people or the practice. People fairly easily read these things as metaphors, and benefit from them, even while knowing that the literal images are horrible. People who would recoil in disgust from actually sacrificing an animal have no trouble accepting the idea that "the sacrifices of God are a broken spirit" (Psalm 51:17).

The terrible images of the cursing Psalms all work this way, and I think that people have usually been able to transcend them and grasp the message behind them.

--------------------
"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
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256

 - Posted      Profile for Nigel M   Email Nigel M   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Well, this thread has certainly been useful to demonstrate some hermeneutical issues. Still hanging in the air behind it all is the need to define such words as 'love', 'hate' and 'justice', because I suspect here - as often in our readings of Scripture - one’s view of God will affect one’s method of interpretation, just as much as vice-versa.
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006  |  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 Nigel M:
Still hanging in the air behind it all is the need to define such words as 'love', 'hate' and 'justice', because I suspect here - as often in our readings of Scripture - one’s view of God will affect one’s method of interpretation, just as much as vice-versa.

I agree that this is really the main issue, and that it needs to be resolved before any particular Scripture can be interpreted satisfactorily.

--------------------
"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
Lynn MagdalenCollege
Shipmate
# 10651

 - Posted      Profile for Lynn MagdalenCollege   Author's homepage   Email Lynn MagdalenCollege   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
yes, the woman has broken the law and deserves to be stoned
No. People do not, as far as I can see, deserve to be painfully executed for adultery. That's also monstrous.
I think this is one of the hard places of scripture, and part of the evidence that the Bible didn't originate with men (i.e., humanity - but at that point would definitely be male) and hasn't been heavily edited by men: while men might stone a woman for adultery, they wouldn't stone both of them.

I see this as part of the great arc of scripture: God first has to show us the problem. We're very happy living before the flood: eating, drinking, marrying and being given in marriage. Everything's fine, what's the problem? We don't understand what righteousness is and, if we don't know what righteousness looks like, we won't know how filthy our robes are and how desperate our condition.

God chooses a man (Abraham) and turns a family into a people (Israel in Egypt), takes them out of captivity through an amazing time of dependence in the desert, and puts them into the land He purposed for them. He gives them extraordinary laws *in part* to differentiate them from the neighbors. He blesses them and disciplines them and blesses them again when they repent.

And His ultimate purpose is not to execute the rigors of The Law upon the Jews (and, by extension, humanity) but to show us our desperate need. His intention always is that He will take on flesh and walk among us and actually raise the bar (Matthew 5-6-7 is The Law Plus) - and then meet the requirements on our behalf.

There are two ways to heaven: perfection in every aspect of The Law -or- receiving the substitutionary blood of Jesus. God is both economic and extravagant: in His economy, it is better that a few should die in order that humanity understands the demands of the law so that humanity might be saved eternally.

At a certain point I realized that the death of our earthly bodies is not that big a deal to God: we're born into this life and every one of us will die, it's necessary. Of course it's big and scary to us, this life being all we know, but He knows better; it just looks big and scary from our perspective, not His. The challenge is to come into agreement with His perspective.

So I think God's heart truly is to save the woman, to say "Neither do I condemn you- go and sin no more," but to get there requires we learn The Law so that we can understand our need for grace.

NO idea if that makes any sense to anyone other than me. It's kind of like dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki (aside: the aunt of my priest's wife survived the bomb in Nagasaki; she was in the basement of the library-- lived a long life afterwards) - by compelling Japan to surrender the USA didn't have to destroy the entire country with the kind of bombing that Germany endured.

Alaric, God's requirement that a murderer be executed predates the Mosaic law (it's given to Noah in Genesis 9:6); the primary sin is against the image of God and the seconary offense is against the murder victim himself (!! - I know, we don't think that way). The Law was given to Moses for the nation of Israel and I don't know of it ever being applied to any other nation. As the church grew and gentiles came into the fellowship, the decision was that gentiles do not have to become observant Jews in order to accept Jesus as Savior. So I personally don't see any conflict in applying the pre-Mosaic death penalty for first degree murder and NOT applying the Levitical death penalty for adultery. But YMMV...

Karl, I think your visceral negative reaction against killing people is a very good thing. I would hope that you could overcome that reaction if you had the opportunity to save your wife and kids by killing the bad guys attacking them but chances are you will never need to overcome your visceral negative reaction.

There's some stuff I've grappled with at a rather bizarre level (having twice been overseas during airplane hijacking crises) and I actually thought through what I would do, if there was an attempt on my plane, flying home: I would look for the opportunity to flatten somebody, literally knock them down with my rather large body, and hope other brave people around me could take advantage of the upheaval. Happily I've never had to act on that decision but I hope I would be brave enough to actually do it. Ironically, I was on a plane diverted to Boston in 2005 and boarded by FBI and homeland security people carrying automatic weapons; they removed a man sitting in my row. I never saw any suspicious behavior but apparently he was traveling with a couple of people in a different class of service and there was some moving back and forth beyond that curtain, made crew & other passengers nervous.
quote:
Thing is, many people seem to major that killing babies is a terrible thing to do to the parents. It is. But it's also a terrible thing to do to the babies, and this is where my problem is. How can making babies suffer to punish the parents be anything but evil?
That's exactly why I don't support abortion; I find them quite equivalent. There's a way that this discussion makes me think of Alex Baldwin on Conan O'Brien's show where he goes ballistic and (parody? after the fact claim) advocates stoning a politician with whom he disagreed and stoning his wife and kids to death as well. If an actor, in a fit of pique over political issues, can go to that extreme place, why are we surprised that the genuinely tormented psalmist can go to that extreme place?
quote:
They are, but my point is that God, presumably, sees such "justice" as monstrous (I really, really, hope He does). I just which He'd said so somehow. Leaving the psalm as it is seems to me to approve such attitudes.
I can understand that; I've often wished there were more editorial asides in the Bible: "And this was a bad thing--" yeah...

Nigel, I really appreciate your well-considered posts.

Mirrizin, yes, when a person is in deep grief or despair, it's good to understand that there is space for that in religion - King David, the murderer, the adulterer, was a man after God's own heart, I believe, because he brought the whole of who he was, himself, warts and all, and submitted it to God. I think this psalmist is doing the same thing.

--------------------
Erin & Friend; Been there, done that; Ruth musical

Posts: 6263 | From: California | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
pimple

Ship's Irruption
# 10635

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

quote:
Karl, I think your negative visceral reaction against killing people is a very good thing.
I bet Karl's really comforted to hear that.

quote:
I would hope that you could overcome that reaction if you had the opportunity to save your wife andkids by killing the bad guys attacking them but chances are you will never need to overcome your negative visceral reaction.
Did I get that right? You hope that Karl, in extremis could stifle his principles and become like his attackers (like you, perhaps?)
Fuck that for a game of soldiers.

--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)

Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
Mama Thomas
Shipmate
# 10170

 - Posted      Profile for Mama Thomas   Email Mama Thomas   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I was just going to mention Psalm 109, and the late 50s--57, 58.

Like with the self-praising Psalms, what I do is usually mentally transfer the meaning to something else. The end of 137 to my sins, etc.

--------------------
All hearts are open, all desires known

Posts: 3742 | From: Somewhere far away | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
BWSmith
Shipmate
# 2981

 - Posted      Profile for BWSmith     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Maybe I need to reread this whole thread start-finish, but I can't understand how it is possible to read a line like this (in the historical and theological context of the Exile):

"Happy shall they be who take your little ones and dash them against the rock!"

and conclude that the intended message is any of the following:

"people in general will be happy if they dash babies against rocks"
"I'm going to go dash a Babylonian baby against a rock"
"I wish I could dash a Babylonian baby against a rock"
"It is God's will that I go dash some babies against some rocks"...

unless one has an ideological axe to grind against Jews/Christians under the conviction that we are a "violent religion", and anomalies like the Crusades are commissioned by passages like this...

Three points to note:

1) Babylon exiled Judah. Babylonian soldiers came in and dashed many, many Jewish babies against rocks as a matter of principle. Unless that point is accepted, then the passage will make no sense.

2) Justice in the Torah is based on the principle of "eye-for-an-eye". Therefore, if one is faithful to the spirit of the Torah, what is one supposed to conclude about the appropriate punishment for a people who freely dashed Jewish babies against rocks? The only possible conclusion is that the Babylonians will eventually reap what they sow.

3) Judah never ended up dashing any Babylonian babies against rocks. It was another group of despicable gentiles (the Persians) who ended up doing that.

While it is clear that revenge against the Babylonians was the will of God, there is no indication that God had adopted the Persians as His special people, and as such, there is no indication that God approved of Persians dashing Babylonian babies against rocks.

Anytime you have any literary work that attempts to deal consistently with ideology and reality, you are going to have these kinds of "babies on rocks" consequences.

I would hope that people realize that we live in a real world where dead babies happen, and that they understand that in bringing up the subject, the Bible is offering dead babies as the problem, not the ultimate solution.

Posts: 722 | From: North Carolina, USA | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256

 - Posted      Profile for Nigel M   Email Nigel M   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by BWSmith:
...I can't understand how it is possible to read a line like this (in the historical and theological context of the Exile): "Happy shall they be who take your little ones and dash them against the rock!" and conclude that the intended message is any of the following:

"people in general will be happy if they dash babies against rocks"
"I'm going to go dash a Babylonian baby against a rock"
"I wish I could dash a Babylonian baby against a rock"
"It is God's will that I go dash some babies against some rocks"...

I think the issue for some (most?) on this thread is that the very concept of violence of this sort is not something that should be found in a Christian reading of the bible - indeed people feel it's a shame that these verses were ever penned or retained in the Scriptures. I agree that none of the examples you give are valid interpretations of this passage, but I suspect some feel that there's a sneakiness in the way the writer expresses things: "I never advocated this action, Your Honour, I merely pointed out to the Babylonians that someone might take pleasure in doing so." It's rather reminiscent of the defence of some who advocate religious violence (jihad) without actually using direct words to say so.
quote:
Originally posted by BWSmith:
Justice in the Torah is based on the principle of "eye-for-an-eye". Therefore, if one is faithful to the spirit of the Torah, what is one supposed to conclude about the appropriate punishment for a people who freely dashed Jewish babies against rocks? The only possible conclusion is that the Babylonians will eventually reap what they sow.

It opens up another line of enquiry: would "an eye for an eye" have been interpreted to mean explicit and mirrored punishment along the 'pound of flesh' lines? Generally there seems to have been a variety of options in the Jewish law codes for restitution; sometimes monetary recompense for loss of life. So I suppose a jurist could approach the actions of Babylonian soldiers from a variety of angles, not simply a bash for every bash suffered.
quote:
Originally posted by BWSmith:
Judah never ended up dashing any Babylonian babies against rocks. It was another group of despicable gentiles (the Persians) who ended up doing that.

We don't have records of it, true, but I wonder what approach would have been adopted by the Jewish soldiers during the cleansing of the promised land during the invasion? Didn't they kill Canaanite infants as well?
quote:
Originally posted by BWSmith:
I would hope that people realize that we live in a real world where dead babies happen, and that they understand that in bringing up the subject, the Bible is offering dead babies as the problem, not the ultimate solution.

Yes, I think this is the issue: it's what we do with the fact that the Bible deals with reality. Its writers were not afraid to expose humanity in the raw - actions, emotions, and all. So it's not a major problem for me that these verses are where they are, but I can see why it's a problem for others.
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006  |  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 
I may be thicker than a whale omelette, but to me:

quote:
"Happy shall they be who take your little ones and dash them against the rock!"
Means exactly the same thing as :

quote:
""I wish I could dash a Babylonian baby against a rock""
As I say, may just be stupidity, but I really can't see the difference. Indeed, if it doesn't mean that, I'm totally at a loss as to what it does mean.

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

Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  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 
quote:

Justice in the Torah is based on the principle of "eye-for-an-eye". Therefore, if one is faithful to the spirit of the Torah, what is one supposed to conclude about the appropriate punishment for a people who freely dashed Jewish babies against rocks? The only possible conclusion is that the Babylonians will eventually reap what they sow.


Justice for dashing a baby against rocks might be being yourself dashed against the rocks, but frankly I'm disgusted to the core by any suggestion that having one's own babies so dashed is justice. The babies in this are innocent parties and it is not justice to dash innocent parties against rocks.

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

Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
BWSmith
Shipmate
# 2981

 - Posted      Profile for BWSmith     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M:
quote:
Originally posted by BWSmith:
Judah never ended up dashing any Babylonian babies against rocks. It was another group of despicable gentiles (the Persians) who ended up doing that.

We don't have records of it, true, but I wonder what approach would have been adopted by the Jewish soldiers during the cleansing of the promised land during the invasion? Didn't they kill Canaanite infants as well?

Yes they did kill them. However, there are fates that are worse than death. (I would gladly die rather than watch any of my children be tortured, for example.)

There is an important difference between a) "utterly destroying" (herem) a city of Canaanites and b) exiling those people into slavery. In one case, the people are quickly sent to death, but in the other, the pain and evil of war is bred into their hearts and those of their children.

I'm pretty sure that while it was God's will for his own people to be enslaved, it was never his command for Israel to enslave the inhabitants of the land (which ties into the failures in Joshua), and I think that's a distinction that loomed large in the minds of the Psalmists. There is a big difference between killing everyone in a city versus lining up a remnant of survivors and forcing them to watch as their babies are dashed against rocks. That kind of action goes beyond judgement into the territory of torment.

A big problem that we in the West have with concepts like this stems from our excellent health care and the expectation of long, healthy lives as a "right" rather than a privilege afforded by our extraordinary medical technology. When one and 90% of the people one knows are living comfortable lives into one's 70s, perspectives on the difference between death (which happened with expected regularity in the ancient world) and tortuous death (or tortuous life for that matter) can be blurred.

As a result, one might imagine that the quick destruction that Israel gave to the Canaanites is somehow morally and functionally equivalent to the tortuous exile inflicted by Assyria and Babylon. Whether or not one wants to equate these two morally is irrelevant to the task of exegesis, where the Psalmists would have certainly seen a huge difference.

(Unfortunately, discussions like this have immediate consequences on modern political discussions about capital punishment and more contemporary issues like our treatment of terrorists in the Iraq War conflict. I hope that people with differing views on modern issues relating to war, death, and torture can come to some consensus on what the Biblical writers would have believed within their historical context. I recognize that my "conservative Republican American perspective" affects my willingness to read a certain mindset into their heads, and I hope that those with dissenting views provide a proper balance...) [Smile]

Posts: 722 | From: North Carolina, USA | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
BWSmith
Shipmate
# 2981

 - Posted      Profile for BWSmith     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I may be thicker than a whale omelette, but to me:

quote:
"Happy shall they be who take your little ones and dash them against the rock!"
Means exactly the same thing as :

quote:
""I wish I could dash a Babylonian baby against a rock""
As I say, may just be stupidity, but I really can't see the difference. Indeed, if it doesn't mean that, I'm totally at a loss as to what it does mean.

It's the difference between "somebody is going to pay you back" and "I myself am going to take steps to pay you back".

The focus of the epithet is directed completely at the Babylonians and not at Israel or Persia. It effectively says, "Because you happily dashed our babies against the rocks, the same thing will eventually happen to you, because Israel's God does not allow injustice to go unpunished." (Of course, the means through which that will happen is left ambiguous, and the author does not command anyone to take that tortuous action upon themselves, but leaves it to Israel's God.)

Put another way, it's the difference between Jeremiah telling the king of Judah that the Temple would be destroyed vs. Jeremiah walking outside and attempting to destroy it himself. It's a prophetic announcement that Babylon's day of punishment is imminent and inevitable.

Posts: 722 | From: North Carolina, USA | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
BWSmith
Shipmate
# 2981

 - Posted      Profile for BWSmith     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:

Justice in the Torah is based on the principle of "eye-for-an-eye". Therefore, if one is faithful to the spirit of the Torah, what is one supposed to conclude about the appropriate punishment for a people who freely dashed Jewish babies against rocks? The only possible conclusion is that the Babylonians will eventually reap what they sow.


Justice for dashing a baby against rocks might be being yourself dashed against the rocks, but frankly I'm disgusted to the core by any suggestion that having one's own babies so dashed is justice. The babies in this are innocent parties and it is not justice to dash innocent parties against rocks.
And again, that ties into two other philosophical arguments about (a) whether there are fates worse than death (i.e. watching your child tortured to death), and (b) whether or not "justice" (while individualistic in principle) is "corporate" in practice.

Regarding (a), while the appropriate punishment for killing is to be killed, one who dashes babies against rocks in front of the parents has committed a separate crime that also requires punishment, for which the only appropriate balance comes from watching their own babies killed.

And on (b), while individualism is the foundation of western post-Enlightenment idealistic justice, in the real world sin is a corporate thing. No sin is truly "private", existing only in our heads. Every sin we commit affects those around us negatively in some way, and the Biblical language of the "sins" of families and clans and tribes and nations reflects that.

So if one approaches certain Biblical passages (like the Achan story, where entire families die from the sins of the head of household) from the perspective of western individualistic crime and punishment, God will appear cruel and unusual in his dealings with humanity.

However, whether or not crime and punishment are comprehendable on a purely individualistic level is an open question, to which the OT authors effectively say "no". (This is part of a more general process whereby the Biblical narrative itself challenges modern western readers to rethink notions of the nature of sin and individualism that they had assumed to be "common sense".)

Posts: 722 | From: North Carolina, USA | Registered: Jul 2002  |  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 
You mean you think it is OK to inflict suffering on the innocent to punish the guilty?

You call it "western individualism" - I call it "justice", and I call punishing a group for the sins of one person both "unjust" and "fundamentally evil".

I guess I'm incapable of rethinking what seems to me to be common sense. If the OT writers thought that punishing people for the sins of others was just, they were WRONG! Simply wrong.

[ 26. June 2007, 15:06: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]

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

Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  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 
I should add - I can no more countenance this concept of "justice" than I can look at green grass and call it blue. It simply isn't.

Fortunately for Christianity (which I would have to reject if I were required to call green blue), Ezekiel seems to agree with me.

[ 26. June 2007, 15:09: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]

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

Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  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 
Sorry to triple post, but I'm just amazed that anyone could think this way, and it's knocking me for six.

Do you really mean that - suppose I (and I'm not the sort to do this by a long chalk) went and drowned someone's baby in front of them, it would be just for the police to come and drown my baby in front of me?

Does anyone actually think that?

I think I might be sick.

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

Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
BWSmith
Shipmate
# 2981

 - Posted      Profile for BWSmith     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
You mean you think it is OK to inflict suffering on the innocent to punish the guilty?

No, I'm saying that in the real world (concretely in the Biblical world), the status of "innocent or guilty" is not neatly contained by individuals, as if every man were an island.

There will always be some people who are "in charge" of other people, and as a consequence to their authority, the negative actions they take will adversely affect those whom they are supposed to protect.

This is true of parents and children or kings of Biblical nations, or in the case of the Achan story, Achan himself and his household.

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
You call it "western individualism" - I call it "justice", and I call punishing a group for the sins of one person both "unjust" and "fundamentally evil".

And from the modernist assertion comes the postmodern question:

Does your definition of justice and evil only exist within your own head, or do you have some basis by which others should adopt those individualistic definitions as well?

Posts: 722 | From: North Carolina, USA | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
BWSmith
Shipmate
# 2981

 - Posted      Profile for BWSmith     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I should add - I can no more countenance this concept of "justice" than I can look at green grass and call it blue. It simply isn't. Fortunately for Christianity (which I would have to reject if I were required to call green blue), Ezekiel seems to agree with me.

"Green" and "blue" have some basis in quantitative light frequencies and which cones in your retina are being stimulated when you "see" that color.

Is there any similar basis for the Enlightenment principle that the individual, not the collective body (family, tribe, nation), is the center of the ethical universe?

Posts: 722 | From: North Carolina, USA | Registered: Jul 2002  |  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 
Sorry, it's just too fundamental. If a person can live personally blamelessly and yet "deserve" punishment because of what someone else has done, then where's the justice?

I'm not looking at this so much from a modern western viewpoint as the viewpoint of someone due to be punished for someone else's crime - wouldn't they find that unjust?

I am well aware that our sin affects others, but that is a very different thing from it making others guilty of what we did. If I murder someone, is my son really deserving of punishment as well? This is crazy!

Or take the Achan case. Achan sins - why should his servant die? What did the servant do wrong? What could the servant have done to have avoided this guilt?

I cannot believe that anyone is actually willing to contemplate this evil, evil, evil injustice. Sorry, I'm out of here before I burst.

Apart from one thing - would you think it just to kill my baby for something I did? Would you? This is where the rubber hits the road here. Do you really believe this yourself?

[ 26. June 2007, 20:27: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]

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

Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
BWSmith
Shipmate
# 2981

 - Posted      Profile for BWSmith     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Sorry to triple post, but I'm just amazed that anyone could think this way, and it's knocking me for six.

How had you interpreted accounts like the Achan story before now? Is its message a mystery?

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Do you really mean that - suppose I went and drowned someone's baby in front of them, it would be just for the police to come and drown my baby in front of me?

There are two dimensions to that, (which dovetails with my earlier point on the difference between a) the Psalmist saying that something bad would happen to Babylon's babies, and b) the Psalmist actually instructing others to do something to Babylonian babies).

Those two dimensions are the perspective of the drowner and that of the police:

(a) From the drowner's perspective, he has gotten what he deserved, and the principle of an "eye for an eye" has been fulfilled (as far as he is concerned).

(b) But the police's perspective is more problematic, depending on their motivation for committing that act. Was it vigilante justice? Was it written in their local law that that was the appropriate punishment for that particular crime? (In Israel's case, we have a third option, namely "Was that particular punishment prescribed as a command from Israel's God?")

And herein we can see that "justice" cannot ultimately be an abstract principle, or else everyone has a different view of justice and chaos rules. Rather, justice at street level is ultimately defined in adherence to the law of the land.

So yes, if the local people had a law set in stone that the appropriate punishment for drowning someone's baby was to drown their baby, then yes, by DEFINITION that would be justice. If you have an abstract notion of justice that conflicts with the content of the law, one would hope that you would have enough persuasion in you to convince the masses to change the law, and if they disagree, you might need to reevaluate the source of your convicions.

Getting back to the Psalmist, it is one thing to state that God's justice would be served and that they would suffer as they made Israel suffer. However, since there was no divine command for Israel to dash Babylonian babies against rocks, the Psalmist dared not suggest that Israel be the one to carry that punishment out.

Posts: 722 | From: North Carolina, USA | Registered: Jul 2002  |  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 
quote:
So yes, if the local people had a law set in stone that the appropriate punishment for drowning someone's baby was to drown their baby, then yes, by DEFINITION that would be justice.
So why did we object to the Taliban? They had their laws, so whatever happened according to them by definition was justice.

No. Not for me.

But like I say, I'm out of here. This is too emotionally draining to carry on. As a liberal type I'm accused of having no moral absolutes. I do. And that this is evil is one of those absolutes. I just cannot see how one can objectively place killing innocent babies in the same category as "justice".

[ 26. June 2007, 20:36: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]

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

Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
BWSmith
Shipmate
# 2981

 - Posted      Profile for BWSmith     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Sorry, it's just too fundamental. If a person can live personally blamelessly and yet "deserve" punishment because of what someone else has done, then where's the justice?

And that is why our laws are centered around individualism in the way that they are - because our secular governments do not operate under the pretense that they can determine absolute guilt or innocence among all parties.

(And it goes without saying that Israel was different.)

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I'm not looking at this so much from a modern western viewpoint as the viewpoint of someone due to be punished for someone else's crime - wouldn't they find that unjust?

It depends on their expectations for themselves and their leaders and everyone's collective responsibility.

I wouldn't pretend to imagine that people convicted in Islamic nations have the same sense of justice that I do, for example, to where they wouldn't see themselves as guilty (in some sense) for a crime that a family member committed.

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I am well aware that our sin affects others, but that is a very different thing from it making others guilty of what we did. If I murder someone, is my son really deserving of punishment as well? This is crazy!

Or take the Achan case. Achan sins - why should his servant die? What did the servant do wrong? What could the servant have done to have avoided this guilt?

Put another way, 1939 international diplomacy fails and Hitler invades France, whereby several French children are killed. What could those children have done to avoid being killed?

That's the way that the real world operates. The mistakes of the leadership result in the suffering of the masses.

Rather than skirt the reality of the way the world is by burying the problem in abstract philosophical principles, the Bible actually takes on the problem of evil and defeats it.

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I cannot believe that anyone is actually willing to contemplate this evil, evil, evil injustice. Sorry, I'm out of here before I burst.

You're leaving because you can't tolerate one poster's particular exegesis of the Achan story?
Posts: 722 | From: North Carolina, USA | Registered: Jul 2002  |  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 
No, I'm leaving because it's too much. What the hell has Hitler's invasion of France and those children's deaths got to do with justice or punishment? Absolutely fuck all, unless you're painting Hitler as an agent of justice. Which is totally fucked up.

I'm out. This is my last.

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

Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
BWSmith
Shipmate
# 2981

 - Posted      Profile for BWSmith     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
So why did we object to the Taliban? They had their laws, so whatever happened according to them by definition was justice.

This is an odd example that doesn't make sense.

Are you referring to the Afghanistan Taliban, who housed a terrorist cell that went outside their sovereign borders to plot and carry out an attack on the US?

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
No. Not for me. But like I say, I'm out of here. This is too emotionally draining to carry on. As a liberal type I'm accused of having no moral absolutes. I do. And that this is evil is one of those absolutes. I just cannot see how one can objectively place killing innocent babies in the same category as "justice".

Of course, the problematic word here is "objectively", which assumes that all babies are created equal, in which case there would be no need for any discussion on justice.

But the overarching question (for which liberalism has no answer) is how to properly deal with the problem of evil - an evil, in fact, that will eventually consume all people in death.

The liberal solution, ironically, has always been to skirt the significance (and even the existence) of evil. It is to "leave the forum", so to speak, and imagine that one can ignore the unignorable.

(That is why liberals have a great fondness for a Jesus who teaches timeless truths, but no need for one who dies on a Roman cross...)

Posts: 722 | From: North Carolina, USA | Registered: Jul 2002  |  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 
quote:
That is why liberals have a great fondness for a Jesus who teaches timeless truths, but no need for one who dies on a Roman cross...
If I wasn't too tired, I'd call you to Hell for that bit of slander.

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

Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256

 - Posted      Profile for Nigel M   Email Nigel M   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I'm a bit short on time at the mo to get into this - will come back later in week. How about we all take a break and think about it some more?

A nice cup of refreshing tea and a scone...

Nigel

Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
Pooks
Shipmate
# 11425

 - Posted      Profile for Pooks     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by BWSmith:

(That is why liberals have a great fondness for a Jesus who teaches timeless truths, but no need for one who dies on a Roman cross...)


Posts: 1547 | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
Pooks
Shipmate
# 11425

 - Posted      Profile for Pooks     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by BWSmith:

(That is why liberals have a great fondness for a Jesus who teaches timeless truths, but no need for one who dies on a Roman cross...)

Care to justify this by being more specific?

(Sorry to double post. Flood protection got the better of me.)

Posts: 1547 | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
BWSmith
Shipmate
# 2981

 - Posted      Profile for BWSmith     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
What the hell has Hitler's invasion of France and those children's deaths got to do with justice or punishment? Absolutely fuck all, unless you're painting Hitler as an agent of justice. Which is totally fucked up.

No, the point is that "dead French children happen". Given that, what is the proper punishment if the underlying principle is "eye for an eye"?
Posts: 722 | From: North Carolina, USA | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
BWSmith
Shipmate
# 2981

 - Posted      Profile for BWSmith     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
That is why liberals have a great fondness for a Jesus who teaches timeless truths, but no need for one who dies on a Roman cross...
If I wasn't too tired, I'd call you to Hell for that bit of slander.
No slander at all (since I wasn't necessarily addressing you), that's an assertion of the real consequences of the liberal worldview.

Another term for the above is "Bultmannian theology" - the emphasis on the sayings of the demythologized "Christ of faith" over and above the messy "Jesus of history".

Ultimately, when the principles of liberalism are taken to their logical conclusion, the only relevance that the aforementioned first-century Palestinian Jew could possibly have on today's church is as a teacher of timeless truths (hence the impetus behind the Jesus Seminar, whose goal was to "recover" the authentic sayings of Jesus).

Posts: 722 | From: North Carolina, USA | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cusanus

Ship's Schoolmaster
# 692

 - Posted      Profile for Cusanus         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by BWSmith:
No slander at all (since I wasn't necessarily addressing you), that's an assertion of the real consequences of the liberal worldview.

Another term for the above is "Bultmannian theology" - the emphasis on the sayings of the demythologized "Christ of faith" over and above the messy "Jesus of history".

Ultimately, when the principles of liberalism are taken to their logical conclusion, the only relevance that the aforementioned first-century Palestinian Jew could possibly have on today's church is as a teacher of timeless truths (hence the impetus behind the Jesus Seminar, whose goal was to "recover" the authentic sayings of Jesus).

Spot the contradiction here. Surely the 'liberal' (in the sense of 19th century liberal Protestantism) project was to attempt to recover the "Jesus of history" from the "Christ of faith". Similar attempts by the Jesus Seminar seem inspired by the same impetus. Where you get the notion of a 'demythologised Christ of faith' from is beyond me.

{Fixed code}

[ 27. June 2007, 11:29: Message edited by: Moo ]

--------------------
"You are qualified," sa fotherington-tomas, "becos you can frankly never pass an exam and have 0 branes. Obviously you will be a skoolmaster - there is no other choice."

Posts: 3120 | From: The Peninsula | Registered: Jul 2001  |  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 
quote:
Originally posted by BWSmith:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
What the hell has Hitler's invasion of France and those children's deaths got to do with justice or punishment? Absolutely fuck all, unless you're painting Hitler as an agent of justice. Which is totally fucked up.

No, the point is that "dead French children happen". Given that, what is the proper punishment if the underlying principle is "eye for an eye"?
It sure as hell isn't the killing of German children. That's just murder on top of murder.

If "eye for an eye" dictates the killing of innocent German children, then "eye for an eye" is fundamentally unjust and should be opposed.

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

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



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4 
 
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