|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: What should we do about 'our own' terrorists?
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Martin 60 :What laws make the wooden interpretation of the language of Genesis 1-2 literally true?
None.
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
on your usual knee-jerk reactions
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Everything in your last post is pretty well same old, same old. Your primary assumption is what I think is wrong, ie that there IS some kind of mental and theological process that occurred over time to change paradigms. I do think change happened mind, but I do NOT think it was because of that. I think that revelation on scripture was always, and is currently, possible.
And where have I said it isn't or wasn't?
I'm not saying that revelation from scripture hasn't always been possible.
What I am saying is perfectly consonant with a 'high' view of scriptural inspiration and the idea that God can and does reveal his will through the sacred texts.
Nothing I have written denies that.
You are reading my posts eisegetically.
Please read what I write not what you think I write. Please try to be capable of something beyond binary reactions based on a lack of understanding of historical contexts and how interpretative processes actually work.
Try to think for once.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
on your usual knee-jerk reactions
Everything in your last post is pretty well same old, same old. Your primary assumption is what I think is wrong, ie that there IS some kind of mental and theological process that occurred over time to change paradigms. I do think change happened mind, but I do NOT think it was because of that. I think that revelation on scripture was always, and is currently, possible.
And where have I said it isn't or wasn't?
I'm not saying that revelation from scripture hasn't always been possible.
What I am saying is perfectly consonant with a 'high' view of scriptural inspiration and the idea that God can and does reveal his will through the sacred texts.
Nothing I have written denies that.
You are reading my posts eisegetically.
Please read what I write not what you think I write. Please try to be capable of something beyond binary reactions based on a lack of understanding of historical contexts and how interpretative processes actually work.
Try to think for once.
Gamaliel, ISTM you deny the implications of what you continually assert. You are making huge assumptions about historical contexts and interpretive processes that I do not think are true.
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
on your usual knee-jerk reactions
Everything in your last post is pretty well same old, same old. Your primary assumption is what I think is wrong, ie that there IS some kind of mental and theological process that occurred over time to change paradigms. I do think change happened mind, but I do NOT think it was because of that. I think that revelation on scripture was always, and is currently, possible.
And where have I said it isn't or wasn't?
I'm not saying that revelation from scripture hasn't always been possible.
What I am saying is perfectly consonant with a 'high' view of scriptural inspiration and the idea that God can and does reveal his will through the sacred texts.
Nothing I have written denies that.
You are reading my posts eisegetically.
Please read what I write not what you think I write. Please try to be capable of something beyond binary reactions based on a lack of understanding of historical contexts and how interpretative processes actually work.
Try to think for once.
Gamaliel, ISTM you deny the implications of what you continually assert. You are making huge assumptions about historical contexts and interpretive processes that I do not think are true.
So is Genesis all literally true?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Gamaliel, ISTM you deny the implications of what you continually assert. You are making huge assumptions about historical contexts and interpretive processes that I do not think are true.
So to be absolutely clear: you say those people who did things in the past which you don't like cannot have thought they were right or justified if they'd been reading their bibles. If they did think they were right or justified, it was because they hadn't read the bibles.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
What, people didn't ever believe nonsense like the universe is only 6000 years old and took four days to make?
Seven. Please, let's not be totally absurd.
I think you'll find, Sir, that the entire non-biological realm, the at least 78 GLY radius universe, fantastical as it might seem to the faithless, was completed on the first Wednesday.
Furthermore, even if we include the creation of man, that's 6 days. Anyone can do that. But 4!
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Gamaliel: What I did say was that he lived at a time when people believed things that we would recognise as fantastical
Right, and what I am saying is there never WAS such a time. You are mistaken to believe there was. To believe that there was reduces people of the medieval past to half-baked idiots with no moral compass. In fact they had all their faculties and if they used them, could have acted in a civilised manner and not tried to justify rapacity by recourse to Christianity because let's face it, you can't.
So, if we all have this moral compass, how can the genocides in Joshua and Judges happen? Surely the moral compass of Joshua should have meant that he did not put whole cities to death?
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
No, I'm not making huge assumptions about historical processes.
You have misunderstood the points I'm making.
I've said that it took hundreds of years for slavery to be abolished. That's not an assumption. It's an historical fact.
I've said that it took many centuries before people changed their views on the right of rulers to impose religious uniformity by force. That's not an assumption. It's an historical fact.
I've said that Gerald of Wales was credulous when it came to accepting the veracity of tall tales he heard on his travels. That a man sleeping in a tree was eaten by toads as just recompense for his sins, that a man engaged in unnatural vice with a bull became pregnant and died giving birth to human-bovine hybrid calf ...
That's not an assumption. That's what he wrote.
None of that implies that people in times past were stupid or incapable of understanding the scriptures.
All it does is reinforce the incontrovertible - and for some reason unpalatable to you - fact that all of us view the world through the particular mindsets and conditions of our times.
Horror of horrors, that also applies to the way we read and understand the scriptures.
That doesn't nullify them, deaden them, truncate them nor undermine them. It simply means that 'we see in part' and that at any one time all of us are going to have blind-spots of one kind or other.
Hopefully, those blind-spots aren't going to be as egregious as those of Charlemagne ... but 'who can discern his errors? Forgive oh Lord, my hidden faults.'
We all fall short. Hopefully not to the point of executing 4,500 Saxon captives ...
If what I am saying isn't true then the onus is on you to prove it.
Fact is, you can't.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Martin 60 :What laws make the wooden interpretation of the language of Genesis 1-2 literally true?
None.
So your pre-modern hermeneutic, including of hermeneutics, is untransferably subjective.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Gamaliel: fact that all of us view the world through the particular mindsets and conditions of our times
Certainly, but they do not totally capture us. IOW, we can transcend them. More importantly, the Lord is able to sidestep them to reach us. Still more so, he can use scripture to do it.
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Gamaliel: fact that all of us view the world through the particular mindsets and conditions of our times
Certainly, but they do not totally capture us. IOW, we can transcend them. More importantly, the Lord is able to sidestep them to reach us. Still more so, he can use scripture to do it.
How has he sidestepped your wooden literalism and your untransferable hermeneutic?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Gamaliel: fact that all of us view the world through the particular mindsets and conditions of our times
Certainly, but they do not totally capture us. IOW, we can transcend them. More importantly, the Lord is able to sidestep them to reach us. Still more so, he can use scripture to do it.
How has he sidestepped your wooden literalism and your untransferable hermeneutic?
If you want a dead horse discussion, I will engage with you there, not here. Post on the Scientific dating thread. Bet you don't.
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
No need. You have a pre-modern and a strangely modern epistemology: in reaction against the Enlightenment, science, postmodernism you harken back to a golden age of subjective ignorance. It's all the same.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Gamaliel: fact that all of us view the world through the particular mindsets and conditions of our times
Certainly, but they do not totally capture us. IOW, we can transcend them. More importantly, the Lord is able to sidestep them to reach us. Still more so, he can use scripture to do it.
I did not say they 'totally capture us', I said we 'know in part.'
I did not say that we cannot transcend them. We can. Sometimes that takes a long time. Hence the example I gave with slavery.
I did not say that God doesn't use scripture to do these things.
For goodness sake man, read what I write not what you assume I write. Read.for.comprehension.for.goodness.sake.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Gamaliel: fact that all of us view the world through the particular mindsets and conditions of our times
Certainly, but they do not totally capture us. IOW, we can transcend them. More importantly, the Lord is able to sidestep them to reach us. Still more so, he can use scripture to do it.
I did not say they 'totally capture us', I said we 'know in part.'
I did not say that we cannot transcend them. We can. Sometimes that takes a long time. Hence the example I gave with slavery.
I did not say that God doesn't use scripture to do these things.
For goodness sake man, read what I write not what you assume I write. Read.for.comprehension.for.goodness.sake.
You definitely suggest the medieval lot were captured by or blinded by their mindset and consequently, they possibly thought they were acting 'Christianly'. That is what is in dispute here.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
No need. You have a pre-modern and a strangely modern epistemology: in reaction against the Enlightenment, science, postmodernism you harken back to a golden age of subjective ignorance. It's all the same.
Sorry mate, I do not understand all your backstory. If you don't wish to discuss a dead horse then fine, I do not wish to discuss it either.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Gamaliel: What I did say was that he lived at a time when people believed things that we would recognise as fantastical
Right, and what I am saying is there never WAS such a time. You are mistaken to believe there was. To believe that there was reduces people of the medieval past to half-baked idiots with no moral compass. In fact they had all their faculties and if they used them, could have acted in a civilised manner and not tried to justify rapacity by recourse to Christianity because let's face it, you can't.
So, if we all have this moral compass, how can the genocides in Joshua and Judges happen? Surely the moral compass of Joshua should have meant that he did not put whole cities to death?
If you use the word genocide you have already judged the Biblical God as Joshua was his agent as Moses was. If you do that there is nothing left to learn. All that is left is a defiant challenge. The sort of thing Martin 60 does with constant references to 'killer God'. A moral compass for me is based on quite a few markers. However, I cannot be the judge of other people's.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Gamaliel: fact that all of us view the world through the particular mindsets and conditions of our times
Certainly, but they do not totally capture us. IOW, we can transcend them. More importantly, the Lord is able to sidestep them to reach us. Still more so, he can use scripture to do it.
I did not say they 'totally capture us', I said we 'know in part.'
I did not say that we cannot transcend them. We can. Sometimes that takes a long time. Hence the example I gave with slavery.
I did not say that God doesn't use scripture to do these things.
For goodness sake man, read what I write not what you assume I write. Read.for.comprehension.for.goodness.sake.
You definitely suggest the medieval lot were captured by or blinded by their mindset and consequently, they possibly thought they were acting 'Christianly'. That is what is in dispute here.
Only by you, as far as I can see. Or possibly Kaplan.
FWIW, I wouldn't say 'captured' or entirely 'blinded', it's more a case that they were limited by their mind-set ... in a similar way to how we all are to some extent or other.
As I have said several times - to no avail it seems - that although we 'see as in a glass darkly', we still see.
David Jones made a similar point in one of the footnotes he made to his long poem, The Anathemata. He observed that a poet writing around 1200 could have made use of the then widespread, but mistaken, belief that a hill outside Jerusalem marked the geographical epicentre of the world.
One writing in the 17th century could have drawn on ideas of gravitational pull.
Both could only draw on thought-forms current at that time.
If I'm repeating myself it's because you repeatedly fail to understand what I'm actually saying and are accusing me of saying things I am not saying.
The fault is entirely on your side due to your abject failure to read for comprehension and to accept what is clearly incontrovertible from the witness of history.
If that sounds harsh, then I make no apologies. You clearly do not understand what I am saying.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
you repeatedly fail to understand
I hear your frustration Gamaliel. The other possibility of course is that you do not understand yourself what it is you have been saying here.
When you say:
quote:
I wouldn't say 'captured' or entirely 'blinded', it's more a case that they were limited by their mind-set ... in a similar way to how we all are to some extent or other
You are actually softening what you said before and of course, really if you go down the road of judging medieval self-awareness as you have, the result will be a conclusion like:
" medieval rulers like Charlemagne, acted as they did in ignorance of what Christianity was really about because they had no other lights to go by other than what the political medieval church encouraged them to believe, therefore, their hermeneutic was sincere though mistaken and they can be said to have acted in good faith"
The opposing view though is that no one can rape, pillage and murder in good faith according to any sort of Christian hermeneutic, therefore, we must look elsewhere for their motives.
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
No, I haven't 'softened' what I've said earlier. You misunderstood it.
Besides, I'm not saying Christians back in those days got everything wrong. Nor am I saying that the Church at that time became entirely 'political' or compromised beyond all recognition - which is what you seem to be suggesting.
FWIW, my understanding is that the Papacy was at its most corrupt in the 9th century, even more so, I'm told, than it was under the Medicis.
Caesaro-Papism was also an issue across the Eastern Churches. Arguably, it still is in Russia, in a vestigial form.
That doesn't mean that all Truth ever disappeared from the medieval Western Church nor the ancient Churches of the East.
What it does mean is that there was a mix of things going on, some good, some bad, some indifferent. Gradually, though, we see abuses and misunderstandings, misapplications and malpractices recognised and rectified. Not as quickly as we might like ...
Of course, what some may think of as errors, others may not - but we all of us seem to be agreed that the actions of a Charlemagne are unjustifiable on any grounds.
If you misunderstand my posts as suggesting they can and should be then that's not what I've been saying or implying.
I can go on at length even though I type quickly and marshall my thoughts clumsily. But as far as I can tell, no-one else here has misunderstood my point as completely as you have done.
Well done! Claim the misapprehension prize ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
Still seems like an own goal. BTW, no one even once has suggested you approve of the medieval bully boys. The issue is you think they can be sincerely 'Christian' in their bullying.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
If you use the word genocide you have already judged the Biblical God as Joshua was his agent as Moses was. If you do that there is nothing left to learn. All that is left is a defiant challenge. The sort of thing Martin 60 does with constant references to 'killer God'. A moral compass for me is based on quite a few markers. However, I cannot be the judge of other people's.
Jamat, as an answer to a genuine question, your answer is pretty judgemental and dismissive. Phrases like:
quote:
If you use the word genocide you have already judged the Biblical God
quote:
If you do that there is nothing left to learn. All that is left is a defiant challenge.
quote:
However, I cannot be the judge of other people's [moral compass]
are not conducive to a discussion and feel as if they are judging me as wanting and not a proper Christian in your terms.
Describing the "curse of destruction" in Joshua 6 and 7 as genocide - when that means the total destruction of Jericho (Joshua 6), of everything except Rahab, with repercussions for failure to comply with this requirement (Joshua 7:10 onwards) - is not a misuse of language. The definition of genocide is:
quote:
the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular nation or ethnic group.
If Joshua is an agent of God, in your opinion is he following God's will, as he believes he is in this story? If he isn't following God's will what else do you think is happening here?
Because if Joshua can believe he is following God's will, why can Charlemagne not believe this too?
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
No need. You have a pre-modern and a strangely modern epistemology: in reaction against the Enlightenment, science, postmodernism you harken back to a golden age of subjective ignorance. It's all the same.
Sorry mate, I do not understand all your backstory. If you don't wish to discuss a dead horse then fine, I do not wish to discuss it either.
There's nothing to discuss there or here due to your occult back story. Mine is implicitly obvious. I have partially recovered from fundamentalism, you cannot as you imprinted on it after losing your Catholic faith. It fell in your vacuum.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
CK: because if Joshua can believe he is following God's will, why can Charlemagne not believe this too?
First I apologise if my reply seemed terse. Genocide is a pejorative term. It is reminiscent of the Holocaust. I do not view God or Joshua that way. Others here do. I have no idea what you think in that regard.
The answer to the question is covered best by the exchange between Mousethief and Kaplan Corday above when they say:
quote:
Mousethief: What is so different with Charlemagne than any other Christian king killing heathens? Why would they need any other justification than the conquest of Canaan?
Kaplan Corday: Because a Christian (king or otherwise) by definition recognises that the NT supersedes and takes precedence over the OT (which is why you don't practise the OT sacrifices), and in NT terms religious violence is heretical.
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
No need. You have a pre-modern and a strangely modern epistemology: in reaction against the Enlightenment, science, postmodernism you harken back to a golden age of subjective ignorance. It's all the same.
Sorry mate, I do not understand all your backstory. If you don't wish to discuss a dead horse then fine, I do not wish to discuss it either.
There's nothing to discuss there or here due to your occult back story. Mine is implicitly obvious. I have partially recovered from fundamentalism, you cannot as you imprinted on it after losing your Catholic faith. It fell in your vacuum.
Well, in that case stop the cheap shots or if you cannot, man up elsewhere.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
First I apologise if my reply seemed terse. Genocide is a pejorative term. It is reminiscent of the Holocaust. I do not view God or Joshua that way. Others here do. I have no idea what you think in that regard.
Look Jamat, the reasoning is not hard to follow: God told Joshua to do this thing in the past; therefore this thing is not totally outlawed by God; therefore when I read that God told Joshua to do something and think that God is telling me to do something then that isn't an unreasonable thing to think.
That's it. Having an exemplar in the bible means that some readers can legitimately think it applies also to them. That's how religious texts work.
quote:
The answer to the question is covered best by the exchange between Mousethief and Kaplan Corday above when they say:
quote:
Mousethief: What is so different with Charlemagne than any other Christian king killing heathens? Why would they need any other justification than the conquest of Canaan?
quote:
Kaplan Corday: Because a Christian (king or otherwise) by definition recognises that the NT supersedes and takes precedence over the OT (which is why you don't practise the OT sacrifices), and in NT terms religious violence is heretical.
And as others have pointed out to you many many times this isn't how it works. There are multiple ways to read and understand the relationship between the OT and the NT - even if one does believe that the latter "supercedes" the former, and this includes the idea that a model after Joshua can be followed alongside the NT.
And it is no good you continuing with the line that it can't - it can. People in the past did it.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
CK: because if Joshua can believe he is following God's will, why can Charlemagne not believe this too?
First I apologise if my reply seemed terse. Genocide is a pejorative term. It is reminiscent of the Holocaust. I do not view God or Joshua that way. Others here do. I have no idea what you think in that regard.
The answer to the question is covered best by the exchange between Mousethief and Kaplan Corday above when they say:
quote:
Mousethief: What is so different with Charlemagne than any other Christian king killing heathens? Why would they need any other justification than the conquest of Canaan?
Kaplan Corday: Because a Christian (king or otherwise) by definition recognises that the NT supersedes and takes precedence over the OT (which is why you don't practise the OT sacrifices), and in NT terms religious violence is heretical.
But in this context—God directed Joshua to kill entire populations, but the NT supersedes the OT in that regard and tells us that religious violence is (now) wrong—sounds an awful lot like "the God of the NT is not the God of the OT." It seems you're saying that religious violence was commanded by the God of the OT but is deemed heretical by the God of the NT.
And I disagree that genocide is a perjorative term. It is a descriptive term, describing a particular form of mass murder.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
First I apologise if my reply seemed terse. Genocide is a pejorative term. It is reminiscent of the Holocaust. I do not view God or Joshua that way. Others here do. I have no idea what you think in that regard.
So how do you regard God and Joshua through the story in Joshua 6 and 7?
quote:
The answer to the question is covered best by the exchange between Mousethief and Kaplan Corday above when they say:
quote:
Mousethief: What is so different with Charlemagne than any other Christian king killing heathens? Why would they need any other justification than the conquest of Canaan?
Kaplan Corday: Because a Christian (king or otherwise) by definition recognises that the NT supersedes and takes precedence over the OT (which is why you don't practise the OT sacrifices), and in NT terms religious violence is heretical.
There are inherent assumptions in Kaplan Corday's reply. He assumes that there is an unchanging definition of a Christian king, which neither history demonstrates, nor does the current identification of the American far right as Christian. Also there is an assumption that the NT can be demonstrated to supersede the OT on religious violence when not only is that image of Jesus saying he is not to bring peace but war and all the apocalyptic imagery in Revelations. (The NT can be demonstrated to supersede the OT on sacrifices as verses that indicate this.)
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
I wouldn't wipe your arse with The Express. And what has that got to do with actual attacks?
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I'm sure there are some publications that rise above this, but the point is there's a double standard in sections of the press that are widely read. Can you imagine the express running a headline saying "Jewish plot to kill pope"?
This headline made me remember that previous exchange. It seems you can get away with saying all sorts of things about Muslims that you could never say about Jews.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
Curiosity Killed, I had that this parallel discussion on the Death of Darwinism thread P 39, in DH. We were discussing Samuel's command to kill the Amalekites. The post below is from there and the other participants were Karl LB and Martin 60. What I said there about it is probably what I would still say.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
And in his commanding the slaughter of every Amalekite man, woman and child.
You see that in Jesus?
Jamat: So this is the real issue? a genocidal God?
Consider reasons why might God have done this and does he have a right to?
Well he does; he is God. end of story. Do you have the right to poison a wasps' nest in your garden?
Leaving that aside, consider the history of these Amalekites and that they particularly were used by Satan to disrupt he Exodus and consequently through Moses, God pronounced a judgement on them. He would have war on Amelek through all generations. So we have in Samuel's decree the exercise of a judicial judgement by God against Amelek.
KRl LB: So your God believes in brutally slaughtering babes in arms because of who their ancestors were?
Fuck that shit. Fuck it to hell and beyond. Because one thing I will not do is pretend to swallow that sort of evil to get on the right side of your genocidal murderous God.
Jamat: If it was a person we were talking about I'd agree with you; but consider where does that kind of attitude get you? God is not genocidal. 'Man,' if he did the same thing would be. That kind of category error somehow seeks to judge God on our terms and we simply are not in the position of knowledge or power to do it.
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
So if you can understand that God may need to exterminate a wasps next in and use that as an analogy to the killing of the Amekelites, could not Charlemagne see his killing of the Saxons in the same way?
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
So if you can understand that God may need to exterminate a wasps next in and use that as an analogy to the killing of the Amekelites, could not Charlemagne see his killing of the Saxons in the same way?
Not unless he could claim some kind of Divine authority for his action. Samuel and Joshua both could do this.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
So if you can understand that God may need to exterminate a wasps next in and use that as an analogy to the killing of the Amekelites, could not Charlemagne see his killing of the Saxons in the same way?
Not unless he could claim some kind of Divine authority for his action. Samuel and Joshua both could do this.
God made Charlemagne king. Says so right there in Romans. And God sanctions putting wrongdoers (like those who don't worship Him) to the sword (also Romans). How much more do you need?
Regarding the wasp thing, justifying genocide by comparing the victims to vermin is a very common tactic.
[ 17. August 2017, 14:41: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Croesus: God made Charlemagne king. Says so right there in Romans. And God sanctions putting wrongdoers (like those who don't worship Him) to the sword (also Romans). How much more do you need?
Quite a lot..like the authority Joshua and Samuel had.
Interestingly, When Holland was invaded in WW2, the Germans demanded compliance from the Dutch Christians on the basis of Romans 13.
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Croesus: God made Charlemagne king. Says so right there in Romans. And God sanctions putting wrongdoers (like those who don't worship Him) to the sword (also Romans). How much more do you need?
Quite a lot..like the authority Joshua and Samuel had.
Interestingly, When Holland was invaded in WW2, the Germans demanded compliance from the Dutch Christians on the basis of Romans 13.
Yep, it's kind of a Biblical catch-all for justifying the acts of whoever's in power at the time. But it does fit the criteria you and KC have demanded, coming from the "good" part of the Bible.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
Didn't the medieval and later kings believe in the divine right of kings? It's certainly something Shakespeare was using in Macbeth to reflect James I (VI) belief in his right to rule. It's what caused Charles I some of his problems. And Charlemagne is also mentioned in this wiki article.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Croesus: God made Charlemagne king. Says so right there in Romans. And God sanctions putting wrongdoers (like those who don't worship Him) to the sword (also Romans). How much more do you need?
Quite a lot..like the authority Joshua and Samuel had.
Interestingly, When Holland was invaded in WW2, the Germans demanded compliance from the Dutch Christians on the basis of Romans 13.
Yep, it's kind of a Biblical catch-all for justifying the acts of whoever's in power at the time. But it does fit the criteria you and KC have demanded, coming from the "good" part of the Bible.
And coming from Junior Jesus, even.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
It seems you can get away with saying all sorts of things about Muslims that you could never say about Jews.
Frankly, the more strongly Gamaliel argues that it's really difficult to go against the culture you're born into, the more one suspects that in British Muslim culture terrorism isn't really all that bad...
I don't see any comparable evil in British Jewish culture.
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
So why were they all so frightened after the Finsbury Park mosque attack?
I don't think the Ahmeds At Number 7 would like it if Jihadists cut my throat on the drive and I certainly wouldn't like it if C18 torched his house.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Didn't the medieval and later kings believe in the divine right of kings? It's certainly something Shakespeare was using in Macbeth to reflect James I (VI) belief in his right to rule. It's what caused Charles I some of his problems. And Charlemagne is also mentioned in this wiki article.
The assumption of a divine right to rule of a politician is not endorsed in the NT. In the Old Testament, kings of Israel ruled by prophetic revelation. Saul reigned by Samuel's word, so did David. David's line was guaranteed and ultimately, that promise continues and the greater son of David, Jesus Christ, will rule. In the divided kingdom, there was no divinely approved line. It occurred by prophetic approbation and moved between different families until the conquest by Assyria.
After, the Babylonian captivity, the different gentile kingdoms were established and disestablished by God. Nebuchadnezzar, learned to his cost, that he ruled by God's permission. Whenever a gentile ruler got arrogant, God took him down such as what happened to Sennacherib the Assyrian conqueror. Cyrus the great when he conquered Babylon was amazed to discover his reign was predicted by Isaiah hundreds of years before. That's why he let the Jews go home.
All of this is OT Bible but in the NT, the Lord Jesus specifically refused political power on more than one occasion. This was the issue the Jews had with him..'If you are the king,where is the kingdom'. In fact there will be a divine kingdom as prophesied by Daniel, but it waits for the second coming. In his first coming, Christ came to deal with sin.
All of this to say that Charlemagne never had a divine right to rule. Neither did Pope Urban 2, or the mighty Innocent 3. Neither did Charles 1. One of the things I respect about Cromwell with all his issues was that he never tried to become royalty. He knew that there was no such right in the present age. Anyone who considered there was or is will learn the truth to their cost.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
But Romans 13 tells us that rulers are appointed by God.
Cromwell didn't 'try to become royalty' in the monarchical sense, but he did consider it at one time - because there was very little precedent for anything else at that time other than Republican Rome from classical antiquity.
Besides, he did try to found a 'dynasty' by passing on the succession as Lord Protector of England to his son. He also, after various attempts to govern by other means, effectively set himself up as an absolute ruler in what was effectively a 'monarchical' type of way without actually being a king in the traditional anointed sense.
Just because rulers and governors might not have been understood to be completely theocratic in the OT sense, that doesn't mean they wouldn't have regarded themselves as being appointed by God in the Romans 13 sense.
Cromwell certainly did. Charlemagne would have done too, but in a more medieval and quasi 'sacramental' way, if I can put it like that.
All you have done is demonstrated your very selective and partial view of history and your failure to grasp the point I've been making about us all - Cromwell, Charlemagne, the Queen, Trump, Marcon, Merkel, Putin and everyone else - being constrained and limited to some extent or other by the times and milieu in which we live.
Cromwell certainly believed himself and his cause to be an instrument of divine judgement - 'God made them as stubble to our swords.'
What makes Charlemagne 'different' if you like, is more a question of degree. He saw himself as reviving the Empire of the West. He saw himself as an annointed ruler with incontestable executive powers alongside the Pope as God's representative and 'ruler' in spiritual matters. Although later medieval conceptions of the Papacy had yet to fully form, Charlemagne played a key rule in that process.
He wasn't the first ruler to impose a homogeneous religious system on his subjects, nor, as Kaplan has reminded us, was he the first to execute anyone who stepped out of line in that respect. The scale of it was unprecedented though, if the story of 4,500 Saxons is to be believed.
What form of government could he have adopted and exercised instead?
As a medieval ruler, what could he have learned and implemented from the NT as an alternative to the monarchical system?
Even a millennium later, Cromwell found it difficult to develop any other model - and ended up imposing a dictatorship.
What could Charlemagne have done - other than not executing pagan Saxon 'rebels' - that would have been different?
That's not deterministic, that's contextual.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
God made Charlemagne king. Says so right there in Romans.
And God made Nero emperor.
Says so right there in the Bible.
quote:
And God sanctions putting wrongdoers (like those who don't worship Him) to the sword (also Romans).
And Paul was martyred under Nero, as were other Christians.
So under your idiotic wooden exegesis, Paul was disobeying his own precept in Romans 13 by not apostatising in obedience to Nero.
There is only one viable interpretation of Romans 13, which I explained when I took to pieces the line you are running in this post earlier in the thread.
Paul is obviously referring to the role of a ruler (whether Christian or not) in keeping ordinary law and order.
Any other interpretation leads to self-evident absurdities,such as that rulers are to kill all heretics and heathen in flat contradiction tot the whole of the rest of the NT, or that rulers are justified in slaughtering Christians.
quote:
How much more do you need?
I have given you and explanation, but what you need is an understanding, which I can't give you.
[ 18. August 2017, 05:55: Message edited by: Kaplan Corday ]
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed
Also there is an assumption that the NT can be demonstrated to supersede the OT on religious violence when not only is that image of Jesus saying he is not to bring peace but war
I have already dealt with the hermeneutical and exegetical idiocy of using Matthew 10:34-9 to jump from "different reactions to Jesus would bring division between family members" to "Jesus taught that Christian rulers were to slaughter heretics and heathen".
quote:
and all the apocalyptic imagery in Revelations.
Revelation, pace groups such as the Fifth Monarchy Men, is descriptive, not prescriptive.
It no more teaches that Christians are to use religious violence, than it teaches we should dress up as creatures with surplus appendages (however tempting the latter prospect might appear).
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
All of this is OT Bible but in the NT, the Lord Jesus specifically refused political power on more than one occasion. This was the issue the Jews had with him..'If you are the king,where is the kingdom'. In fact there will be a divine kingdom as prophesied by Daniel, but it waits for the second coming. In his first coming, Christ came to deal with sin.
All of this to say that Charlemagne never had a divine right to rule. Neither did Pope Urban 2, or the mighty Innocent 3. Neither did Charles 1. One of the things I respect about Cromwell with all his issues was that he never tried to become royalty. He knew that there was no such right in the present age. Anyone who considered there was or is will learn the truth to their cost.
Jamat is it not that that is your reading of the Bible and what it should mean to kings and rulers? James I (& VI) did not believe that. In a speech to Parliament in 1610 he said:
quote:
The state of monarchy is the supremest thing upon earth, for kings are not only God's lieutenants upon earth and sit upon God's throne, but even by God himself they are called gods. There be three principal [comparisons] that illustrate the state of monarchy: one taken out of the word of God, and the two other out of the grounds of policy and philosophy. In the Scriptures kings are called gods, and so their power after a certain relation compared to the Divine power. Kings are also compared to fathers of families; for a king is truly parens patriae [parent of the country], the politic father of his people. And lastly, kings are compared to the head of this microcosm of the body of man. Quoted in the Wikipedia article on The Divine Right of Kings
We do not now believe in the divine right of kings, but the medieval and later kings believed they were ruling by God's will and that they were divinely ordained by Romans 13:
quote:
13 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
² Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
³ For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. Romans 13:1-5 KJV
They genuinely believed they were "the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil." And being human they made the decisions about who was good and who was evil.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed
Because if Joshua can believe he is following God's will, why can Charlemagne not believe this too?
Charlemagne could have believed anything he liked - that he was the incarnation of the angel Gabriel, or that he was the fulfilment of one of the beasts in Revelation.
The pertinent question is whether, as a Christian, he had any NT justification for liquidating the heathen, and he didn't.
As for Joshua, in contrast to the many silly pseudo-problems thrown up about the Bible, the genocide which accompanied the Conquest is a very genuine one, for which I freely admit to having no satisfactory explanation whatsoever.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
It no more teaches that Christians are to use religious violence, than it teaches we should dress up as creatures with surplus appendages (however tempting the latter prospect might appear).
I agree with this. But I can see how someone might not work that out if they simply sat down and read the Bible. It seems from all the foregoing that you would argue they could only get that wrong through wilful misinterpretation.
In a sense I also agree but I also think my interpretation that it *can't* be advocating religious violence is almost as wilful, in that it is based on very strong prior views that I bring to the text.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
It seems you can get away with saying all sorts of things about Muslims that you could never say about Jews.
Frankly, the more strongly Gamaliel argues that it's really difficult to go against the culture you're born into, the more one suspects that in British Muslim culture terrorism isn't really all that bad...
I don't see any comparable evil in British Jewish culture.
Russ, that is a sweeping generalisation about British Muslim culture. British Muslim culture is far more varied than you are assuming, I hope from ignorance. I work with Muslim colleagues and Muslim students and see a wide range of cultures. I also hear how frightened these Muslim colleagues and young people are by the way they are being attacked in the media and in the British psyche.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Curiosity Killed: Jamat, is it not that that is your reading of the Bible and what it should mean to kings and rulers
Yep, Can I help it if I'm right? ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Regarding the genocide in Joshua, I agree that as long as we insist on judging God as if he was one of us, we will have this problem. If so, though, there is no end of things we can accuse God of. The fact that we get sick, old and helpless and die, bad weather, and the fact that there are not enough parking spaces.
But God is not one of us.
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
No Jesus then?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
