Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: God on trial.
|
George Spigot
Outcast
# 253
|
Posted
Here is a link to a television play called The Trial. Based on the possibly apocryphal events from Elie Wiesel's book The Trial of God. Set in Auschwitz during World War II Jewish prisoners put God on trial
For those who haven't seen it I think the acting shown here is amazing.
This is the full play. It's one hour and twenty five minutes long.
For those short of time here’s a ten minute clip that cuts to the heart of the matter.
Here is a quote from the play.
Rabbi Akiba: Who led us out of Egypt?
Judge: God led us out of Egypt.
Rabbi: I have a question; Why were we in Egypt to start with?
Judge: There was a famine, so we took shelter.
Rabbi: Who sent the famine?
Judge: Well, we don't know much about the famine...
Rabbi: God sent the famine. So God sent us to Egypt and God took us out of Egypt.
Judge: And later He sent us out of Babylon in order that we might...
Rabbi: And when He brought us out of Egypt, how did He do it? By words, vision, miracle?
Judge: Moses asked Pharaoh...
Rabbi: And when Pharaoh said no?
Inmate: The plagues.
Rabbi: First Moses turned the Egyptians' water to blood (Exodus 7: 17-21). Then God sent the plague of frogs (Exodus 8: 1-7); next a plague of mosquitoes (Exodus 8: 16-18); then a plague of flies (Exodus 8: 21-24). Then he slew their livestock (Exodus 9: 1-6). Next a plague of boils (Exodus 9: 9-11). Next came the hail (Exodus 9: 18-25), which battered down the crops and even the trees and structures everywhere, except in Goshen where the Israelites lived.
Judge: But still Pharaoh did not agree.
Rabbi: And so a plague of locusts (Exodus 10: 12-15). And then the days of darkness (Exodus 10: 21-23). And finally what?
Judge: God slew the firstborn of Egypt and led us out of Egypt.
Rabbi: He struck down the firstborn: from the firstborn and heir of Pharaoh to the firstborn of the slave at the mill. He slew them all (Exodus 12: 29-30). Did He slay Pharaoh?
Judge: No, I don't think so. It was later.
Rabbi: It was Pharaoh that said no, but God let him live. And slew his children instead. All the children. And then the people made their escape taking with them the gold and silver and jewelry and garments of the Egyptians (Exodus 12: 35). And then God drowned the soldiers who pursued them (Exodus 14:26-28). He did not close the waters up so that the soldier could not follow. He waited until they were following and then He closed the waters. And then what?
Judge: And then the desert and ultimately the Promised Land.
Rabbi: No. The Promised Land was empty and a new place, uncultivated.
Judge: No. There were...
Rabbi: When the Lord thy God shall bring you into the Promised Land you shall cast out many nations before you, nations much greater and mightier than you are. You shall smite them and utterly destroy them. Make no covenant with them and show no mercy to them (Deuteronomy 7: 2).
Inmate: It shows us His favour. We are His people.
Rabbi: And he gave us a king in Saul. Now when the people of Amalek fought Saul's people, what did the Lord God command? I'll ask the scholar.
Scholar: Crush Amalek and put him under the curse of destruction.
Rabbi: Was Saul to show any mercy to spare anyone?
Scholar: Do not spare...
Rabbi: Do not spare him, but kill. Kill man, woman, babe and suckling, ox and sheep, cattle and donkey (1 Samuel 15: 3). So Saul set out to do this and on the way he met some Kenites (1 Samuel 15: 6). Now these were not Amalek's people, he had no quarrel with them. He urged them to flee. And the Lord our God, was He pleased by the mercy of Saul: by the justice of Saul?
Scholar: No. No he wasn't.
Rabbi: And when Saul decided not to slaughter all the livestock and to take it to feed his people (1 Samuel 15: 9-26), was God pleased with his prudence, his charity?
Scholar: No.
Rabbi: No, He was not. He said, you have rejected the word of Adonai, therefore He has rejected you as king (1 Samuel 15: 23). And then to please the Lord our God, Samuel brought forth the king Agar and hacked him to pieces before the Lord at Gilgar (1 Samuel 15: 32-33). After Saul, there came David who took Bathsheba, the wife of Uriah the Hittite, to himself (2 Samuel 11: 2-4). After arranging to have Uriah killed (2 Samuel 11: 14-15) against the wishes of God, did God strike David for this?
Scholar: In a manner of speaking...
Rabbi: Did He strike Bathsheba?
Scholar: In the sense that when they had...
Rabbi: Adonai said, since you have sinned against me, the child will die (2 Samuel 12: 13-14). [Turning to the judge] You asked earlier, who would punish a child? God does! Now did the child die suddenly, mercifully, without pain?
Scholar: In a-
Rabbi: Seven days! Seven days that child spent dying in pain while David wrapped himself in sack and ashes and fasted and sought to show his sorrow to God (2 Samuel 12: 15-18). Did God listen?
Scholar: The child died.
Rabbi: Did that child find that God was just? Did the Amalekites think that Adonai was just? Did the mothers of Egypt -- the mothers -- did they think that Adonai was just?
Scholar: But Adonai is our God, surely...
Rabbi: Oh, what? Did God not make the Egyptians? Did He not make their rivers and make their crops grow? If not Him, then who? What? Some other God? But what did He make them for? To punish them? To starve, to frighten, to slaughter them? The people of Amalek, the people of Egypt, what was it like for them when Adonai turned against them? It was like this. Today there was a selection, yes? When David defeated the Moabites, what did he do?
Judge: He made them lie on the ground in lines and he chose one to live and two to die (2 Samuel 8: 2).
Rabbi: We have become the Moabites. We are learning how it was for the Amalekites. They faced extinction at the hand of Adonai. They died for His purpose. They fell as we are falling. They were afraid as we are afraid. And what did they learn? They learned that Adonai, the Lord our God, our God, is not good. He is not good. He was not ever good. He was only on our side. God is not good. At the beginning when He repented that He had made human beings and flooded the earth (Genesis 6: 6) - why? What had they done to deserve annihilation? What could they have done to deserve such wholesale slaughter? What could they have done that was so bad? God is not good. When He asked Abraham to sacrifice his son (Genesis 22: 1-2), Abraham should have said no. We should have taught our God the justice that was in our hearts. We should have stood up to Him. He is not good. He has simply been strong. He has simply been on our side. When we were brought here, we were brought by train. A guard slapped my face. On their belts they had written "Got mit uns" -- God is with us. Who is to say that He is not? Perhaps He is. Is there any other explanation? What we see here: His power, His majesty, His might, all these things that turned against us. He is still God, but not our God. He has become our enemy. That is what's happened to our covenant. He has made a new covenant with someone else.
*************************************************
For anyone who believes in Biblical inerrancy I'd be interested to know how they would respond to the charges brought against God here.
For those who don't believe in Biblical inerrancy, (the majority here I expect) Id be interested to know what we are meant to make of how the bible describes God in the context of this play. Was it written for a people who at the time would expect/want a God to be this cruel? I'm often told that even if not to be taken literaly the bible is still informative and central to the christian faith. How should I interprete the verses mentioned in this very powerful play and not leave with the assumption that if I wanted to "convert" people to atheism I should start by handing out free bibles.
-------------------- C.S. Lewis's Head is just a tool for the Devil. (And you can quote me on that.) ~ Philip Purser Hallard http://www.thoughtplay.com/infinitarian/gbsfatb.html
Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
One of the interesting things about that play is that at the end, they find God guilty, and then the rabbi, (I think it's a rabbi), says, 'let us pray', and they begin to pray. That's quite piquant, and very Jewish.
-------------------- I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
George Spigot
Outcast
# 253
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by quetzalcoatl: One of the interesting things about that play is that at the end, they find God guilty, and then the rabbi, (I think it's a rabbi), says, 'let us pray', and they begin to pray. That's quite piquant, and very Jewish.
Also at the very end when in the present day it's asked if the prayer was answered. The reply being, "We're still here".
-------------------- C.S. Lewis's Head is just a tool for the Devil. (And you can quote me on that.) ~ Philip Purser Hallard http://www.thoughtplay.com/infinitarian/gbsfatb.html
Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
I think the all important question comes before the 'let us pray' declaration: 'What then should we do?'
-------------------- 'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe' Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
posted by Spigot: quote: For those who don't believe in Biblical inerrancy, (the majority here I expect)
I think your expectations are a little off
-------------------- 'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe' Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
The idea that we put God on trial, found him guilty, and subjected him to the most grievous punishment available to us by law is an article of faith for Christians.
-------------------- Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Zach82: The idea that we put God on trial, found him guilty, and subjected him to the most grievous punishment available to us by law is an article of faith for Christians.
It is, but it's also an article of faith that he was innocent. The evidence of the OP is that he was not. That's the issue to address
-------------------- Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
George Spigot -
OK, so let's suppose that God is guilty, and that we can say: "He is not good".
That verdict throws up all sorts of problems - even for the atheist.
Firstly, what do we mean by the term 'good'?
According to what standard of justice is God being declared guilty, and what is the justification for that standard of justice?
Secondly, no mention seems to be made of human evil, and God's role, as ultimate lawgiver and judge, in punishing evil. Everything bad that happens is deemed to be a case of an evil God (whatever 'evil' is supposed to mean) being gratuitously sadistic to innocent human beings, who are, after all, beings with no moral responsibility at all (so we are led to believe), although, ironically, such beings seem very quick to assume the role of moral judges, while abdicating any moral responsibility for their actions (by the way, I am not making any comment about the reasons for the holocaust, as if to suggest that the victims 'deserved' it. I am simply making a general point about human moral responsibility in the light of God's supposed 'evil').
Thirdly, if it is contradictory to judge one's creator to be evil, and therefore the conclusion is drawn that there is no God, what then? If that is the case, then what were the Nazis doing wrong in pursuing a policy, which they believed served the interests of their own survival? Hardly a sin according to natural selection!
So whichever way you look at it, either God is good (otherwise we would have no concept of 'good' by which to judge Him), or God does not exist (and neither does 'good', and therefore we would have no basis to make a moral judgement about this non-existent God).
I know this is cold logic, but proper trials operate by "cold logic" and not emotion, no matter how great the suffering.
So let's say that this verdict is 'valid'. So what? What are you going to do about it? What is the way forward in the light of this verdict? What alternative, better view of reality do you have to offer that would guarantee an end to human suffering?
I would be very interested to read your response to these questions. [ 07. February 2013, 12:36: Message edited by: EtymologicalEvangelical ]
-------------------- You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Midge
Shipmate
# 2398
|
Posted
The ‘evidence’ in the play is a bit selective. Jacob’s family was dysfunctional to say the least which led them to selling one of their own into Eygpt. The promised land was ‘flowing with milk and honey’ but the spies gave them cold feet, Israel demanded a king and God reluctantly relented to their request, much of the rest of OT narratives is about the people of God breaking laws and covenants again and again and God forgiving again and again.
But don’t let any of that spoil a good story.
I surprised that the prosecuting Rabbi didn't remember these narratives better!
-------------------- Some days you are the fly. On other days you are the windscreen.
Posts: 1085 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical: Thirdly, if it is contradictory to judge one's creator to be evil, and therefore the conclusion is drawn that there is no God, what then? If that is the case, then what were the Nazis doing wrong in pursuing a policy, which they believed served the interests of their own survival? Hardly a sin according to natural selection!
Well crafted piece of bullshit, EE.
-------------------- 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
|
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by lilBuddha Well crafted piece of bullshit, EE.
Thanks for providing your reasoning for your conclusion. It was most succinct!
Obviously when faced with such irrefutable logic, I really must be wrong!
-------------------- You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I think there's an old Jewish joke, in which a group of Jews pray to God, for fuck's sake, can't you find another chosen people, we're sick and tired of having to deal with it. Black humour, I guess.
-------------------- I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
There's a shorter answer isn't there? That God was not involved in all of these things, didn't make them happen, with the people telling stories that blames God for their behaviour, while God only watched and never did the plagues, orders for genocide etc. It's all mythology, stories and only illustrative of the history of a tribal god image projected onto God, eventually growing into something a little closer to what God really is.
-------------------- Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety. \_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by no prophet: There's a shorter answer isn't there? That God was not involved in all of these things, didn't make them happen, with the people telling stories that blames God for their behaviour, while God only watched and never did the plagues, orders for genocide etc. It's all mythology, stories and only illustrative of the history of a tribal god image projected onto God, eventually growing into something a little closer to what God really is.
Very sensible. It's a problem if you are a literalist, and therefore have to defend genocide stories and so on. If not, not.
-------------------- I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical: quote: Originally posted by lilBuddha Well crafted piece of bullshit, EE.
Thanks for providing your reasoning for your conclusion. It was most succinct!
Obviously when faced with such irrefutable logic, I really must be wrong!
Well crafted, I truly mean that. You manage to simultaneously dance the edge of the knackers and Godwin's law, whilst throwing a large insult past the border of a commandment violation with a statement which undoubtedly has those of similar ideology giggling like schoolchildren. All without a single piece of reason. And managed a statement which would fit beautifully into two variations of Circus Offense threads. If your arguments were so well built, you would have by now converted even Crœsos. Truly well done, no sarcasm intended.
Still bullshit, though.
-------------------- 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
|
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by lilBuddha You manage to simultaneously dance the edge of the knackers and Godwin's law...
Godwin's law?
Funny, but I thought I was responding to the OP!
Did you miss the phrase "set in Auschwitz" in the OP? Or perhaps responding to a post specifically about the Nazis is now deemed to be a 'violation' of Godwin's law? How strange.
quote: All without a single piece of reason.
Code for: "All without a single piece of reason with which I happen to agree."
Perhaps you missed what I wrote? :
quote: If that is the case, then what were the Nazis doing wrong in pursuing a policy, which they believed served the interests of their own survival? Hardly a sin according to natural selection!
You may not agree with my argument, but that is not the same as claiming that I presented no argument.
Maybe that distinction is a little difficult for you to grasp?
-------------------- You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
George Spigot
Outcast
# 253
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical: Firstly, what do we mean by the term 'good'?
According to what standard of justice is God being declared guilty, and what is the justification for that standard of justice?
Lets take the point about murdering children raised in the play. I personally think its wrong to murder a child. From your response I take it you want me to explain why I think its wrong and what my justification is for calling it wrong. The answer is I don't know. I can certainly give you some guesses. Maybe my ability to feel pain and experience grief gives me empathy. Maybe natural selection has left me with the instinct to protect them. Perhaps some combination of the above or something else I've not even thought of.
Maybe God exists and he implanted in my brain the desire not to see harm come to children. It's possible but then if the old testament is also true then it seems unlikely.
So while I can't speak for Elie Wiesel or the characters based on his work I'd say that as far as my OP goes I'm judging God by my standard of justice.
quote: Secondly, no mention seems to be made of human evil, and God's role, as ultimate lawgiver and judge, in punishing evil. Everything bad that happens is deemed to be a case of an evil God (whatever 'evil' is supposed to mean) being gratuitously sadistic to innocent human beings, who are, after all, beings with no moral responsibility at all (so we are led to believe),
Where in the play are we led to believe that?
quote: although, ironically, such beings seem very quick to assume the role of moral judges, while abdicating any moral responsibility for their actions (by the way, I am not making any comment about the reasons for the holocaust, as if to suggest that the victims 'deserved' it. I am simply making a general point about human moral responsibility in the light of God's supposed 'evil').
God was the one killing egyption first born not people. God was the one who hardened pharaoh's heart so as to show off his power and prolong the suffering not people. It's those events that the trial is concerned with. (Again this is only really meaningful if we are arguing that the events in the OT portray God accurately).
quote: Thirdly, if it is contradictory to judge one's creator to be evil, and therefore the conclusion is drawn that there is no God, what then? If that is the case, then what were the Nazis doing wrong in pursuing a policy, which they believed served the interests of their own survival? Hardly a sin according to natural selection!
This is similar to your first question. The only answer I can give is that personally I'd judge them to have done wrong by my own standards. And I'm not sure what sin and natural selection have to do with each other.
quote: So whichever way you look at it, either God is good (otherwise we would have no concept of 'good' by which to judge Him), or God does not exist (and neither does 'good', and therefore we would have no basis to make a moral judgement about this non-existent God).
Or God put concepts such as good and evil into people but is not himself good. Or concepts were thought up by people.
quote: So let's say that this verdict is 'valid'. So what? What are you going to do about it? What is the way forward in the light of this verdict? What alternative, better view of reality do you have to offer that would guarantee an end to human suffering?
Are you saying here that if I can't come up with a nicer alterative then your version must be true?
-------------------- C.S. Lewis's Head is just a tool for the Devil. (And you can quote me on that.) ~ Philip Purser Hallard http://www.thoughtplay.com/infinitarian/gbsfatb.html
Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
George Spigot
Outcast
# 253
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by The Midge: The ‘evidence’ in the play is a bit selective. Jacob’s family was dysfunctional to say the least which led them to selling one of their own into Eygpt. The promised land was ‘flowing with milk and honey’ but the spies gave them cold feet, Israel demanded a king and God reluctantly relented to their request, much of the rest of OT narratives is about the people of God breaking laws and covenants again and again and God forgiving again and again.
But don’t let any of that spoil a good story.
I surprised that the prosecuting Rabbi didn't remember these narratives better!
I find this completely besides the point. If someone is on trial for mass murder then the prosecution will focus on (surprise surprise) the mass murder. Now the defence could of course bring up a list of noble acts the defendant has done. Do they cancel out the mass murder? Is there some karma system whereby if you do enough good deeds you wipe out the bad ones? Of course not.
-------------------- C.S. Lewis's Head is just a tool for the Devil. (And you can quote me on that.) ~ Philip Purser Hallard http://www.thoughtplay.com/infinitarian/gbsfatb.html
Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bostonman
Shipmate
# 17108
|
Posted
EE: the reason that your argument fails is that it gives a false dichotomy, "Either God defines goodness or there is no God and therefore no basis for goodness." Moral realism (the position that there are objective moral truths: e.g., murdering a child in cold blood is wrong) can be compatible with either theism or atheism. There does not need to be an "author" of moral laws any more than there needs to be an "author" of physical laws.
Of course, as a Christian I believe God to be the author of both. But anyone could easily say that there are objective moral facts and either a) no God or b) a God who sometimes violates them.
Posts: 424 | From: USA | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Midge
Shipmate
# 2398
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by George Spigot: quote: Originally posted by The Midge: The ‘evidence’ in the play is a bit selective. Jacob’s family was dysfunctional to say the least which led them to selling one of their own into Eygpt. The promised land was ‘flowing with milk and honey’ but the spies gave them cold feet, Israel demanded a king and God reluctantly relented to their request, much of the rest of OT narratives is about the people of God breaking laws and covenants again and again and God forgiving again and again.
But don’t let any of that spoil a good story.
I surprised that the prosecuting Rabbi didn't remember these narratives better!
I find this completely besides the point. If someone is on trial for mass murder then the prosecution will focus on (surprise surprise) the mass murder. Now the defence could of course bring up a list of noble acts the defendant has done. Do they cancel out the mass murder? Is there some karma system whereby if you do enough good deeds you wipe out the bad ones? Of course not.
What I am saying is that in most court room dramas that I have seen, if the prosecution misrepresent the evidence then the case would be thrown out; unless this is a kangaroo court (as if humans had jurisdiction over God anyhow!). The account presented in the OP is wrong or incomplete on many details. If you change historical details to suit your ideology then you blame a minority group on all your economic woes and demonise them then ....
The Bible is a strange collection of books. Some of it is hard and describes terrible things in an almost detached and obscure manner. Actions are recorded without any explanation or justification at times. It is said that it is possible to make the Bible say almost anything if you quote it selectively enough. There is real profit on trying to discern what it actually says and the means in its own terms.
I am not a biblical literalist because I am aware that I have to rely on translations and view the narratives from a 21st Centaury POV. I enjoy my bacon sandwiches and would eat shellfish if they didn’t cause a rash and don’t think that we should adopt ancient marriage practices etc. I at least try to get my head round what the text actually says.
-------------------- Some days you are the fly. On other days you are the windscreen.
Posts: 1085 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
The Midge
Shipmate
# 2398
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by George Spigot: @The Midge
Thank you for your reply. In your opinion which historical truths did the Rabbi in the play get wrong?
See post above- I haven't got time to give chapter and verse because we have the in-laws around this week end. (I’m supposed to be cleaning )
I did note from today's reading that the Pharaoh was leading his army when it got swept away in the Red Sea. So he got his 'just deserts' at the end of that episode- according to good narrative convention.
How if you only focus on the ‘mass murder’ then you might miss the fact that the cause and effect chain leads back through the wrong done by people all the way back to the eating of the forbidden fruit.
-------------------- Some days you are the fly. On other days you are the windscreen.
Posts: 1085 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
George Spigot
Outcast
# 253
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by The Midge:
How if you only focus on the ‘mass murder’ then you might miss the fact that the cause and effect chain leads back through the wrong done by people all the way back to the eating of the forbidden fruit.
Suggesting that the killng of children is justified because of a crime an ancient ancestor commited does not help the accused case.
-------------------- C.S. Lewis's Head is just a tool for the Devil. (And you can quote me on that.) ~ Philip Purser Hallard http://www.thoughtplay.com/infinitarian/gbsfatb.html
Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
I embrace ALL of the above. My response to the sublime Wiesel is that that is a modern, post-hoc response applied inappropriately YET ... with deep, deeper, deepest justification to the, increasingly strange library we call the Bible.
I come from 45 years of justifying the pragmatism/violence of a violent/pragmatic God: His ways aren't our ways, His ends - which are the best case for us - justify His means.
Which, Karl: The Liberal Backslider, would make your response to Zach82 most appropriate.
I have voiced here, in fear believe it or not, perhaps because of my acceptance of the pragmatic violence of God, that in Christ we have the apology of God, if we need it. "Are we even now?".
And weaving back, semi-coherently as is my aging wont, none in the narrative as it developed got to Wiesel. Evidence of his highly evolved, modern view.
And coming back atcha Karl: Liberal Backslider: In that narrative, by the time we get to murdering God in our psychotic fear, it isn't because of any of the points Wiesel makes.
But I have finally all but submitted to postmodernism and am comfortably uncomfortable there.
We cannot know.
I DO know that creation is impossible without meaningless, inappropriate, disproportionate, random, unjust suffering for ALL concerned.
I do know that all will be well and that as those Jews would have said "God is great and God is GOOD". Better than that, which is just SOOOOO Augustineanly heretical, "God is good.". He has NO greatness beyond His goodness and His goodness is only meaningful to those who experience it.
Us psycho monkeys. Which include Sodom and Gomorrah, the Moabites, Amelekites, Jews of 70 AD Jerusalem and 1943 AD Treblinka.
I'd love to believe what you say no prophet, now more than ever as Brian McLaren has made it more, most but not fully credible to me, as credible as it's ever going to get, that God has ALWAYS been like Jesus in all of His dealings with mankind. That our pre- and post- incarnational narratives of a violent God are just that. Ours.
In Job, in Satan, throughout. To be understood postmodernly.
But the weakness of postmodernism is that it INSISTS that God is truly Marcion, as IngoB points out. It insists that we know the Father through the Son. AS the Son. As if He were. Despite the fact that in the post-resurrection apostolic narrative the Holy Spirit assassinates Christian and Jew alike. So only God the Holy Spirit kills ? And what about the Killer God of the Old Covenant, who kills in terribly exquisite detail, YHWH, Adonai, Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh, I Am That I Am, I Am. Jesus.
The problem with that insistence is that God the Killer is immensely ... credible. And that if the narrative is NOT purely mythological, He is Killer from beginning to end in the name of our salvation. Pragmatic.
And it gets worse. There is no other way. Just as ther obviously isn't to suffering.
Which, of course, which is now why I'm a pacifist. Although I don't know whether God does violence or not, Jesus didn't. Which is affecting me VERY personally and beyond, at the sharp end, right now.
Might start a separate thread on that. [ 10. February 2013, 17:22: Message edited by: Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard ]
-------------------- Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by George Spigot If someone is on trial for mass murder then the prosecution will focus on (surprise surprise) the mass murder. Now the defence could of course bring up a list of noble acts the defendant has done. Do they cancel out the mass murder?
But 'murder' only makes sense if there exists a valid law by which this form of killing is declared to be illegal. According to what you have written (in your earlier response to my post) you admit that your understanding of morality and justice is your own. So presumably your judgment of 'mass murder' is also entirely your own?
While I accept that the biblical accounts of the so called 'genocides' are difficult, it must be borne in mind that all of them are acts of judgment in response to evil. For example, the Egyptians murdered new born Hebrew children, a fate from which Moses escaped thanks to the cunning of the Hebrew midwives. You seem to have overlooked this particular iniquity.
Now, of course, you may argue that the innocent children should not be judged for the sins of their parents. But what if parents were morally responsible for the lives of their children and they brought God's judgment down on their nation, would that judgment not inevitably include their children? Is God responsible for inflicting an unavoidable judgment? If God had spared the children, then presumably instead of dying a quick death (horrific though that was), they would have died a slow and agonising death of starvation, given that they would have had no one to look after them (I realise that this does not apply to the Egyptian children, but it certainly applies to the children of the other so called 'genocides'). Unless, of course, you think that the Israelite victims of the other nations' evil should bear that burden, and bring up thousands of children many of whom would be bent on only one thing once they reached adulthood: revenge.
In a moral universe, evil has consequences, and widespread evil attracts the judgment of God. Why should God be blamed for these judgments, and not those who provoked them?
Here's an interesting article about the Midianite 'genocide'.
-------------------- You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
I think the solution to not having a load of orphans is not to murder all their parents in the first place.
We'd not give two seconds to this sort of rationalisation of a genocide in modern times, and nor should we to one that allegedly happened 3000 years ago. Not even if it's in the Bible. If the Bible attempts to justify acts of barbarity, then so much the worse for it. Do you really think that Egyptian killing of hebrew children justifies the killing of innocent Egyptian children? Really? Should we, inspired by this Biblical precedent, introduce a law that the penalty for child murder is the death of the perpetrator's own children? Would you support such a law? If not, then why offer this up as some kind of defence?
-------------------- Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider Should we, inspired by this Biblical precedent, introduce a law that the penalty for child murder is the death of the perpetrator's own children? Would you support such a law? If not, then why offer this up as some kind of defence?
"Inspired by this Biblical precedent"??
This seems to reveal a profound misunderstanding of the Christian faith, as if we simply construct some kind of moral philosophy from various events in the Bible, and then seek to live accordingly. This is far from the truth.
Christianity is not based on this kind of biblical application at all. Certain events occurred in the Ancient World, and unfortunately we are not given the full facts, although there are hints along the lines of "Do not do this as the nations did which I destroyed before you..." We can have some inkling as to the extent of evil of the nations which were subject to so called 'genocide', and through thinking about these events we can understand that evil is actually a very serious matter, and not to be shrugged off lightly, as is often the case today. We can also perceive the patience of God in withholding judgment from satanic nations for very long periods of time, during which there were dire warnings of impending judgment.
We can draw an understanding from these events, but it is mistaken to assume that we must somehow try to replicate them. In the same way, no Christian would imagine that God's command to Abraham concerning Isaac (which was a clear foreshadowing of the cross - the ram being a figure of Christ taking the place of humanity, symbolised by Isaac) should be replicated today.
Authentic Christian morality is based on the reality of God's grace through the Holy Spirit built around the greatest two commandments of love.
-------------------- You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
EE,
If your response to these texts in which God urges genocide is "they deserved it" then - even if you don't know exactly what the crime of those tribes was - it seems to me that you must believe that there are crimes for which genocide - the deliberate slaughter of an entire race or tribe of men, women and children - is a morally right, just and proper punishment.
Perhaps you might enlighten us as to a few examples of what you think such crimes might be ?
If the set of "crimes deserving of genocide" is empty, then your apparent argument that "they deserved it" is a non-starter. Can you convince anyone that that set is non-empty ?
Intrigued,
Russ
-------------------- Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Russ If your response to these texts in which God urges genocide is "they deserved it" then - even if you don't know exactly what the crime of those tribes was - it seems to me that you must believe that there are crimes for which genocide - the deliberate slaughter of an entire race or tribe of men, women and children - is a morally right, just and proper punishment.
There is a tense wrong in your comment.
You say: "it seems to me that you must believe that there are crimes for which genocide - the deliberate slaughter of an entire race or tribe of men, women and children - is a morally right, just and proper punishment."
These should be substituted with "were" and "was" respectively.
And furthermore, it is not my response that "they deserved it", but apparently God's response (although I would want to qualify the term 'deserved'). As someone who, for obvious reasons, does not have first hand experience of the brutal context of the Ancient World and the practical implications of its paganism, I trust that the God of all justice knew what He was doing.
What I will not do is judge these moral decisions in the light of modern (or post-modern) 'morality'; a morality that, on the one hand, expresses disdain for the judgments of God, (expressing particular concern for children), while, on the other hand, lambasts those who have dedicated their lives to protecting the lives of innocent children in the so called enlightened 21st century (I am, of course, referring to the dire fate of the unborn). There is no unhypocritical and consistent moral position within contemporary society which can possibly serve to put God on trial.
That is why I would like to know the moral basis by which God is being judged. George Spigot told me that it was just his own moral viewpoint. I'm afraid that is not good enough. If God is to be tried, then surely there must be an objectively valid moral law by which this can be done. Otherwise, it's simply a kangaroo court (a bit like the one which condemned Jesus).
-------------------- You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical: If God is to be tried, then surely there must be an objectively valid moral law by which this can be done. Otherwise, it's simply a kangaroo court (a bit like the one which condemned Jesus).
I'll admit I am a bit confused. What you are saying sounds like "I do not understand the Old Testament, but I will choose to believe anyway." "Surely there must have been moral reasons* to kill little children. in the past, though there are none now." "Pagans is nasty buggers what deserve killing, innit." "God might have been a bastard then but he isn't now so bugger off."
*There are practical reasons for this. Kill all the adults, so they do not rise up and kill you back. Kill the male children so they do not grow up and kill you back. Spare the girl children because you can have sex with them later. Hopefully [i]later[i/] but I would not wager too much on that.
-------------------- 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
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Hmmm. I think I'll close my involvement with this: for me it comes down to which is more unthinkable:
(a) God really did order a genocide (with or without "so-called" before it or scare quotes) (b) The Bible is rather more a human document than some would like.
I find the first considerably more unthinkable a proposition than the latter. And I've spent feckin' decades working through this one, before someone starts shouting "cop-out".
-------------------- Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
I'm still wrestling with it. The best I can come up with ATM is the use of hyperbole in Joshua et al ie: that God didn't really order mass genocide and certainly it wasn't carried out, otherwise there wouldn't have been all the prohibitions against and trouble with the Jews intermarrying with the indigenous inhabitants of the Promised Land.
-------------------- "Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (a) God really did order a genocide (with or without "so-called" before it or scare quotes) (b) The Bible is rather more a human document than some would like.
Or..
(c) God really did warn evildoers of impending judgment, and those evildoers ordered their own destruction by wilfully ignoring those warnings.
-------------------- You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Sigh - you wouldn't let it lie...
Yes. They deserved it, those evil infants. God'd warned the little bastards.
And that's only a variation on option A anyway.
And that really is the last I'm engaging on this particular Findus Lasagne. [ 14. February 2013, 10:16: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
-------------------- Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
Your child dies from Ebola. Your child is raped and killed by a paedophile. You are a Jew and your child starves to death in a Nazi concentration camp. Your are an Amorite and your child is getting hacked to pieces by Israelites.
Is it natural to rage against God in all of these cases? Obviously. Does this prove that God is either powerless or evil? No. But rage and reason do not mix well.
However, there is more to this than just general theodicy. There is an apparent gradation here. Ebola I may consider more as part of an imperfect world, than as God's fault. And the paedophile I may consider more as a case of human evil, than as God's fault. But with the concentration camps, there begins a strain. Yes, the Nazis are evil as the paedophile is evil. But the Jews are the chosen people, are they not? So why is God not looking out more for His own? Is he not at least evil here as a negligent parent is evil? And in the case of Amorites God appears to play deadly favourites. Now he commands that evil be done unto others by His champions.
But I don't think that it works that way. This is really based on turning God in some kind of superhuman agent, a Greek god. Ebola is just stuff going on, and the paedophile is as well (just in a conscious way), but in the death camps and on the Palestine battle fields God actually springs into action. We see Him much like we see the gods in the Illiad, moving out of His heavenly abode and coming down to earth for some dirty action.
But that is not God. God is the ultimate cause of all that is, evil and good. Yes, He's not formally causing evil because we can understand evil as a lack. But He sure is the ultimate cause of these good that have lacks. And nothing escapes His predestination. Whether deterministic or free, whether predictable or contingent, all things move according to God's eternal will alone.
If you blame God for the genocide on the Amorites, blame Him for Ebola. Does it really matter what scythe He picks to take the lives that He gives? The real difference is rather this: Ebola and the paedophile do not mean much. Sure, you can draw some general lesson of stoicism. Yes, you can bewail human evil. But then there is a myriad other things in the world that can teach you the same lessons (and one or the other is sure to do so). But the holocaust probably means more. And the slaughter of the Amorites sure does. The Jews of the OT are in some sense historical props to make spiritual points. They always pre-figure.
And importantly these things are specific. It simply does not follow from the Israelites slaughtering the Amorites according to God's will that the Hutu may slaughter the Tutsi. What God wants us to do in general, He has said most clearly, He has commanded us. Take Christ's two Great Commandments and His Sermon of the Mount as the most recent update, and you will not go wrong.
But do take off the rose-tinted glasses. God isn't huggy bear. He gives life to Ebola as much as to you. This world is not where your tears will be dried, this world is where you cry them. Why did God have the Amorites wiped out? Because He had a point to make, and the Israelites were the stylus with which He used to write into history. If that had not been the case, then the Amorites would have died in more conventional ways (some of them possibly of equal misery). If you want to honour their memory, consider what God might have wanted to say that was worth writing with their blood into scripture. And no, it probably wasn't about appropriate military tactics... [ 14. February 2013, 10:46: Message edited by: IngoB ]
-------------------- They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Your last paragraph is essentially David Attenborough's objection to the existence of a creator God: how can one believe in a creator who creates a little girl in Africa and yet also creates a parasite that will bore into her body and turn her blind? Your post acknowledges that objection but doesn't actually answer it.
-------------------- "Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Yes, when IngoB said 'He had a point to make ...', I sat on the edge of my seat, waiting for the punch-line, but it didn't come. What is the point?
-------------------- I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
The point appears to be "God is a bastard. Deal with it."
-------------------- 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
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
How about: reality is just a gauzy diaphanous negligee, and you will learn to see through it to the glory that awaits?
-------------------- I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by lilBuddha: The point appears to be "God is a bastard. Deal with it."
Yep. It's quite ironic that IngoB's explanation results in a God that is virtually indistinguishable from the Greek Gods he disparages, one that is perfectly OK with killing whole nations just to make a point or send a message to those who remain.
-------------------- Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider Yes. They deserved it, those evil infants. God'd warned the little bastards.
No, God did not warn the children. He warned their parents, who were morally responsible for the lives of their children.
So don't twist my words.
quote: And that's only a variation on option A anyway.
No, it's not.
-------------------- You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
EE - if you cannot see the utter vomit-worthy moral repugnance of slaughtering infants for the failings of their parents there's no point. Which is why, as I'm saying for the third time, I'm not engaging further. [ 14. February 2013, 13:47: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
-------------------- Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Marvin the Martian ...one that is perfectly OK with killing whole nations just to make a point or send a message to those who remain.
No, not just to make a point or send a message, but to eradicate evil.
By the way... if God is such a bastard, and if he really doesn't exist and is therefore just a made up concept, doesn't that tell you something about the perverted mind of man? After all, if this is the case, then this "bastard God" must have been a projection of "bastard minds". Doesn't make the human race look much good, does it?
Or if you think that God does exist, but is still a bastard, then that means that we, his creatures, must also be bastards, being the product of a bastard creator.
Whichever way you look at it, if God is guilty, then we go down with him!
And if, perchance, you argue that certain human beings are immune from this judgment, being atheists, then you may like to set out the objectively valid moral code which exonerates such people? A subjective moral code, of course, exonerates nobody, being entirely solipsistic, and certainly cannot be used to pass any judgment on God.
-------------------- You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Matt Black: Your last paragraph is essentially David Attenborough's objection to the existence of a creator God: how can one believe in a creator who creates a little girl in Africa and yet also creates a parasite that will bore into her body and turn her blind? Your post acknowledges that objection but doesn't actually answer it.
Sigh. No, that's not it. Not at all. That's just good old theodicy. Boring. I assume you have dealt with it, somehow. Perhaps simply by not thinking about it. I don't care!
My point is rather that if you accept the obvious, that this world is full of sorrow and carnage (and of good things, but we are looking at the dark side now), and that this also is God's doing and will at least in an ultimate sense, then you can actually step beyond "oh how evil, God killed the Amorites". Yeah, God killed the Amorites. And in fact everybody else that lived back then. Quite a lot of them in ways arguably no less gruesome. Question is, is there more to this than that? For most of us, when we bite the dust, there will not be much more to it, really. The world will keep on turning as the worms chew through our corpses. Not so for the Amorites, in fact. At least so if people would stop reading the bible like the bloody BBC news...
quote: Originally posted by Marvin the Martian: Yep. It's quite ironic that IngoB's explanation results in a God that is virtually indistinguishable from the Greek Gods he disparages, one that is perfectly OK with killing whole nations just to make a point or send a message to those who remain.
You didn't get it. Look, the nations are dying all around you. Or close to home, you are dying (slowly, we hope). The Greek gods are a bit of a mixed bag, for example the Fates would be closer to what I'm talking about. The point is that this is not like Athena appearing to Achilles. You cannot point at some part of the world, or some people doing something, and declare that to be God's will and then discuss whether it was acceptable behaviour on God's part to make this happen, rather than staying up in heaven and minding His own business. Everything is from God all the time. Perhaps sometimes God makes His presence more clearly felt, perhaps even to the point where it is a bit like Athena and Achilles. For Achilles. But that does not mean that God is somehow absent from the rest.
So yeah, we have to deal with the fact that this world is a bit of a slaughterhouse. It also is very beautiful, but the darkness is undeniable and in an ultimate sense that darkness could not be without God (at least as a lack of what God keeps in being). Do your theodicy, come to terms with it.
But then, and that's what I am saying, then you can go back to the OT and ask "What is God trying to tell me here?" without having to focus constantly on the horrible deaths that spell it out. For there are horrible deaths all the time and they are on God's book anyway. It's just that these ones are supposed to mean something to you. Probably.
-------------------- They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider EE - if you cannot see the utter vomit-worthy moral repugnance of slaughtering infants for the failings of their parents there's no point.
These judgments are utterly repugnant. I completely concur that they are vomit-worthy. God certainly thinks they are, because he has "no pleasure in the death of him who dies" (Ezekiel 18:32). I hate them. God hates them. Any sane person should hate them.
So why did they occur?
Answer: necessity, due to the wilful evil of those who deliberately opened themselves up to the unavoidable judgment of God.
Instead of ranting at God, why not reserve all your anger for those who are heinously evil?
As for why the children should be judged with their evil parents: it's a brutal choice in the Ancient World - a quick death or a slow agonising death by starvation and neglect. Or perhaps you have some insight into how Israel was supposed to cater for people who were actually the moral responsibility of their enemies?
I would like to suggest that God has a much higher view of parenthood than you do.
-------------------- You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
IngoB, sorry but you're missing my point: yes, we can say that since God created everything knowing that somehow sin/Satan/we/any, some or all of the foregoing would fuck it up, whence evil, death, sickness, general bastard-ry etc, He is in some way indirectly responsible for that (although that's perhaps another discussion/ debate), but in Joshua and elsewhere (eg: I Sam 15), He - allegedly - explicitly and directly commands genocide, including the murder of infants and babes-in-arms. That's a bit different from "in a fallen world, shit happens and bastards like Hitler and Stalin who commit mass murder exist"; that's saying that God is Hitler.
So far, you haven't answered that.
-------------------- "Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Matt Black: So far, you haven't answered that.
You likely believe two things. First, that God is bound by your morals. As you can tell me that I'm immoral if I kill someone innocent, so you can tell God that He is immoral if He kills someone innocent. But that is simply a non sequitur. Whether one believes that God is a moral agent or not (I don't, by the way), there simply is no reason why what is good for you must be good for God. If spiders were free and intelligent agents, would it be correct to condemn a female spider as murderess and cannibal if she eats her male partner after copulation? No, that would be imposing morals fit for a human being on a spider. But a spider is not a human being. Much less is God (as God) a human being.
Second, you believe that your morals can limit you even over and against God. Killing an innocent is at least always wrong for you, even if perhaps not for a spider or God Himself. And that remains so even if God says otherwise. But God is not like your boss or commanding officer who tells you what to do in a way that you can refuse (even if it perhaps would cost you dearly to refuse). God can rearrange your moral system as easily as anything else in the universe. And indeed He has arranged your moral system in the first place (by various means). Whatever moral grounds you are planting your feet on now, ready to defy God, it is provided by God. If He really wants to move you, then He's simply going to move both you and the moral grounds you stand on.
Now, on the specific issue of killing, and in particular killing the innocent, I think one very clear feature of the human heart is that of the in-group vs. the out-group. The baby Amorite was not innocent to Joshua. What evil could that baby have done then? Simple, belonging to the Amorites. This sort of thing has been, is, and always will be a part of the law God has written on our hearts. Perhaps you say now "but no, this is evil, how can God have written that on our heart?" First, the OT sure makes a heck more sense if we allow for this supposed evil to be a valid moral modifier, doesn't it? It's not just Joshua who gets a break. The chosen people were, well, chosen, and other people weren't. And if the chosen people behaved well, then the not-chosen people had it coming. And if they didn't, then the chosen people would be reduced forcefully to a faithful remnant, which then continued as chosen. You know how it goes...
However, then there comes Christ. And what Christ does, in many ways, is to change the scope rather than the content of morals. And that has typically to do with turning the exterior to the interior, and with redefining boundaries. And one thing He does is to redefine the in-group and out-group moral modifier. Basically the in-group becomes now all that follow Christ, and the out-group all that do not, and membership becomes an act of the will and of consequent deeds, available to all till death. It immediately follows that the best way of supporting the in-group becomes to convince those in the out-group to join. Rather than to make war on them.
The upshot is that Joshua did what was good back then (or at least it is not a priori clear that what he did was evil). But this is not what is good for a Christian now. Yet we do not need to overly worry about this change. The kind of change we see is more one of scope of consideration than of moral law. To accommodate the hardness of our hearts, God allowed us to consider simplistic in/out-groups like Israelites and Amorites. But not any longer. And we can neither say that God ought to have given our current scope to Joshua back then nor that Joshua ought to have resisted God. God does not need to follow our human moral reckoning, but our moral reckoning is assigned to us. And Joshua lived before Christ.
When we stop worrying about Joshua as evil in post-Christ terms, then we can start to think about what his exploits may mean to us, spiritually, as Christians. And that is a good thing.
-------------------- They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|