|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: 1 Samuel 15:3... Kill both man and woman, child and infant...
|
the famous rachel
Shipmate
# 1258
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by bush baptist:
The text doesn't say that it's God's command anyway -- it says Samuel says it was God's command. Judges got things wrong, kings got things wrong, from time to time prophets get things wrong -- why assume that Samuel got everything right?
Unfortunately verses 10 and 11 seem to imply that Samuel got it right:
" 10 Then the word of the LORD came to Samuel: 11 "I am grieved that I have made Saul king, because he has turned away from me and has not carried out my instructions." Samuel was troubled, and he cried out to the LORD all that night."
Here it seems to say specifically that the instructions to slaughter the Amalekites came from God.
That said, I think Samuel is traditionally believed to have written the early chapters of 1 Samuel, so he could just be writing the story in a way which makes himself look good. Whether that's an acceptable suggestion depends on your overall attitude to the bible. If we treat all the nasty bits of the old testament as being the product of human beings writing with ulterior motives, we certainly make our lives easier, but we also essentially chuck away quite a lot of text!
Rachel.
--------------------
A shrivelled appendix to the body of Christ.
Posts: 912 | From: In the lab. | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
I think it's ok to treat bits of the Bible as people writing with ulterior motives. Nehemiah, for example, seems to present itself as written by Nehemiah to justify the way he acted, and ask God to look kindly on him as a result.
That doesn't mean that the book wasn't inspired by God, and it doesn't mean it doesn't have things to teach us. Of course the Bible has dual authorship, both human and divine, of the same passage, at the same time.
--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.
Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
Back to the passage though....
v33 makes it clear that the commanded destruction is direct retribution for the actions of the Amalekites - they killed children, so their children will be killed.
There's also the issue in this passage of full deliverance. If Saul does not kill all the Amalekites (as he doesn't), Israel will need saving from them again and again and again (David, Esther, etc) because the Amalekites always hate the Israelites. Partial destruction of the Amalekites only means partial deliverance and peace for a while. Full destruction means full and permanent deliverance.
If Saul had obeyed God, future wars and slaughters would have been averted.
I guess the question could be put like this: If you met Stalin (substitute evil person of your choice) when he was a child, and you knew for certain everything he would become, all the evil and harm he would do, and all the people he would kill, and so on, would it be permissible to kill him to prevent that?
If God commanded it, and if you had someone who did hear God perfectly and reliably (which is how the author of 1 Sam presents Samuel - he is the prophet like Moses from Deut 18...), and you were certain that God had commanded it, would it be right to obey?
I think that's pretty much exactly what's happening here...
--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.
Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
bush baptist
Shipmate
# 12306
|
Posted
Just ducking back for a minute to an earlier, point, Custard! The famous rachel said:
quote:
If we treat all the nasty bits of the old testament as being [only] the product of human beings… we certainly make our lives easier, but we also essentially chuck away quite a lot of text!
Well -- true.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
But pursuing the possibility I raised, last-ditching, just to see if it can work...
at least the text doesn’t say that Saul was turned away specifically for not killing the innocent, just for his reaction to Samuel's instructions. And in his disobedience to Samuel’s (mistaken) instructions, Saul showed both his lack of mercy, in killing all the despised, and his cupidity, in reserving the valuable commodities, including Agag. (And his unwillingness to take responsibility, in claiming that it was the people who urged him to keep the sheep etc -- what a weasel!)
Saul’s actions in response to the instructions did show his unfitness to be king. And Samuel might well have spent a sleepless night, knowing that the whole event was wrong, but unable to articulate exactly why. And so the "failed to obey" instructions line.
There! given it a shot.
But returning to your interpretation, Custard -- I'm not sure the Amalekites were doomed for what they might have done in the future -- the other texts (Deuteronomy 25:17-19, amongst others) say that it was what they had done in the past. In either case, though, it leaves me glumly thinking about Psalm 78, where the whole history of Israel is said to be " a parable... dark sayings of old which we have heard and known, and our fathers have told us."
Dark sayings and a parable that I don't understand.
Posts: 1784 | From: drought-stricken land | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
TiggyTiger
Shipmate
# 14819
|
Posted
I think that's pretty much exactly what's happening here...
Well no, because that would be one person or baby whom you know for sure will be directly responsible for evil on a mass scale, whereas this is thousands of people, many of whom are entirely innnocent. In fact most of them - includig the donkeys and other furry creatures. Of course you know why they kept the sheep? ;-)
--------------------
'Each and everybody is hiding, each is concealing the place where his heart beats.'
Daniel Barenboim
Posts: 347 | From: Bath | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
the famous rachel
Shipmate
# 1258
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Custard.:
Back to the passage though....
v33 makes it clear that the commanded destruction is direct retribution for the actions of the Amalekites - they killed children, so their children will be killed.
There's also the issue in this passage of full deliverance. If Saul does not kill all the Amalekites (as he doesn't), Israel will need saving from them again and again and again (David, Esther, etc) because the Amalekites always hate the Israelites. Partial destruction of the Amalekites only means partial deliverance and peace for a while. Full destruction means full and permanent deliverance.
If Saul had obeyed God, future wars and slaughters would have been averted.
I guess the question could be put like this: If you met Stalin (substitute evil person of your choice) when he was a child, and you knew for certain everything he would become, all the evil and harm he would do, and all the people he would kill, and so on, would it be permissible to kill him to prevent that?
If God commanded it, and if you had someone who did hear God perfectly and reliably (which is how the author of 1 Sam presents Samuel - he is the prophet like Moses from Deut 18...), and you were certain that God had commanded it, would it be right to obey?
I think that's pretty much exactly what's happening here...
Hmmm...
I think that you're aware that even the Stalin analogy is a more difficult ethical question than you're implying. Also, as TiggyTiger suggests, it seems an inappropriate analogy anyway. Perhaps a better ananlogy would be the Troubles in Northern Ireland. If, in early 1922, someone had killed off all the protestants in Northern island, and their babies and pets, and turned all of the island of Ireland over to the Catholics, we might have prevented a lot of terrorist atrocities. However, that would not make such an action morally right.
The reason I think that this is a fair analogy, is that, as I said earlier - I suspect a significant part of the Amalekites hatred of Israel sprang from Israel's repeated attempts to wipe them off the face of the earth. Israel does not appear to have been blameless in this conflict, any more than either the protestants or the catholics were blameless in the Northern Ireland situation.
The big difference between the Troubles and our passage however, is that unlike in Northern Ireland the passage makes it very clear whose side God is on. That really seems to be the main difference between the two warring tribes here - and it's a rather worrying difference, because God (presumably) created the poor Amalekites, before deciding they weren't the tribe de jour, and getting his favourite humans to wipe them out. I'm definitely back with a toddler-God here, kicking over his blue toy soldiers, because today he likes the green ones better.
All the best,
Rachel.
--------------------
A shrivelled appendix to the body of Christ.
Posts: 912 | From: In the lab. | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the famous rachel:
I think that you're aware that even the Stalin analogy is a more difficult ethical question than you're implying.
Yes, it's a tricky one. But it's easier to come down on the side the Bible seems to come down on than with alternatives.
quote:
The big difference between the Troubles and our passage however, is that unlike in Northern Ireland the passage makes it very clear whose side God is on.
I agree that's the big difference. But I think that's a pretty huge difference, because rebellion against God is an objective evil and having your ancestors from Ireland isn't.
If we look at it from a big picture point of view, God didn't choose Israel because he didn't like the other nations. He chose Israel to be the means by which he blessed the whole world (as per Chris Wright, Genesis 12:3b, etc).
The Amalekites weren't Canaanites - they were descended from Esau (Gen 36:12) and as such weren't one of the nations that Israel was going to attack. It also means that they'd normally be under the protection of the laws in Deut 20, which always allow the possibility of the city surrendering and being allowed to live. Slaughter is only for when they don't surrender...
In Exodus 17:8, just after Israel have come up out of Egypt, the Amalekites, for no obvious reason, attack the Israelites. In other words, they choose to put themselves in direct opposition to God's plan to bless all nations.
In Judges 3, 6 and 7 they invade Israel, seemingly unprovoked. 1 Samuel 14 is the first recorded time when Israel attacks Amalek. Yes, it is because of their past actions.
I think what I want to argue is that their past actions as a nation have demonstrated that their future actions would continue to do the evil of opposing God's plan, and that is a possible reason why the children are to be killed (contra the normal practice of Deut 20). Another of course is because that was what the Amalekites did.
God's stated plan isn't to bless Israel and use them to destroy all the other nations. It is to bless Israel, and use Israel as a channel of blessing to all the other nations. Some nations get on board with that (e.g. the Gibeonites). Some nations directly oppose it (e.g. the Amalekites).
--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.
Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
the famous rachel
Shipmate
# 1258
|
Posted
More hmmm....
Custard, you know the bible better than me, so I probably shouldn't argue, but I'm not sure your post holds water:
quote:
Originally posted by Custard.:
The Amalekites weren't Canaanites - they were descended from Esau (Gen 36:12) and as such weren't one of the nations that Israel was going to attack. It also means that they'd normally be under the protection of the laws in Deut 20, which always allow the possibility of the city surrendering and being allowed to live. Slaughter is only for when they don't surrender...
I'm not sure the Amalekites are descended from Esau. They turn up in Genesis 14:7 as a tribal group, and I don't reckon Esau has been born at this point. I know that Esau has a son called Amalek, but I'm not sure how he can be the father of the Amalekites, unless there are two lots.
quote:
Originally posted by Custard.:
In Exodus 17:8, just after Israel have come up out of Egypt, the Amalekites, for no obvious reason, attack the Israelites. In other words, they choose to put themselves in direct opposition to God's plan to bless all nations.
My problem here is the "no obvious reason". The Bible doesn't give a reason, but that doesn't mean there wasn't one. In the abscence of textual evidence we can only speculate what that reason as, but one possibility is that the Amalekites thought - rightly or wrongly - that the Israelites were invading there territory. Given that there is no evidence that the Amalekites had any knowledge of God it seems unfair to accuse them of "put[ting] themselves in direct opposition to God's plan to bless all nations", when they may have been just trying to defend their homeland. It's difficult to put yourself in direct opposition to a plan you know nothing about.
Also, the Israelites emerge distinctly better from the encounter in Exodus 17 than the Amalekites. They totally destroy the Amalekite army. Then God declares his undying hatred of the Amalekites. Not exactly gracious in victory, is he?
Your argument really seems to be trying to justify God's action after the fact, working on the assumption that since he's God, this action must be right. My argument comes down to something equally simple: genocide is wrong, therefore this action was wrong - whether or not it involved God. I'm not sure there's any middle ground here.
All the best,
Rachel.
--------------------
A shrivelled appendix to the body of Christ.
Posts: 912 | From: In the lab. | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the famous rachel:
I'm not sure the Amalekites are descended from Esau. They turn up in Genesis 14:7 as a tribal group, and I don't reckon Esau has been born at this point. I know that Esau has a son called Amalek, but I'm not sure how he can be the father of the Amalekites, unless there are two lots.
Actually, no. In Gen 14, the land of the Amalekites is mentioned as an area, but without any Amalekites around. If Genesis was written during the early monarchy (which there's quite a bit of circumstancial evidence for e.g. Gen 36:1), it makes perfect sense to talk about that area as the land of the Amalekites, in the same way that we might say that the Persians were a civilisation that was based in Iran.
[coding/excess quoting]
[ 13. August 2009, 09:14: Message edited by: Marvin the Martian ]
Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
Oops - sorry about the last 2/3 of that last post, which was just me quoting Rachel, but without having done the code properly. Could a kind host please delete everything from the second quoted section onwards?
--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.
Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Custard.:
Could a kind host please delete everything from the second quoted section onwards?
Happy to oblige ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Marvin
Kind Host
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
sanityman
Shipmate
# 11598
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the famous rachel:
Your [Custard's] argument really seems to be trying to justify God's action after the fact, working on the assumption that since he's God, this action must be right.
I know this isn't your choice of words, but these were Israel's actions, not God's. The account was also composed by them, after the fact. It might have been their understanding that it was mandated by God, but it might also be that their understanding was flawed - especially if you think the the immutable character of God is ill-represented by such actions.
I suppose it depends how directly you feel that God communicated to Israel, as distinct from how it was recorded.
- Chris.
--------------------
Prophesy to the wind, to the wind only for only the wind will listen - TS Eliot
Posts: 1453 | From: London, UK | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Great Gumby
Ship's Brain Surgeon
# 10989
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by The Revolutionist:
It attracted some attention from atheists blogs, which (unfairly and misleadingly) declared that he was "defending genocide".
If the complete destruction of an entire nation isn't genocide, what is? And if he's not defending it in that link, what is he doing?
Quite. To do him credit, he does at least implicitly acknowledge that it would be wrong to claim God's blessing for genocide today, although his reasoning for that is frankly laughable, but any amount of strawman-building and special pleading about how uniquely evil the Amalekites were still leaves him defending genocide.
Incidentally, the blog's now been taken down, and I had to read it in Google cache. It's been replaced by a self-justifying whine about nasty people deliberately distorting his words "to suggest that I, or Christians in general, defend genocide". He claims to have clearly stated that he doesn't in the offending blog, but I've read it several times, and I can't see where. The very best he can claim is that he says nowadays, under the New Covenant, it's out of our hands.
--------------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. - Richard Feynman
A letter to my son about death
Posts: 5382 | From: Home for shot clergy spouses | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
the famous rachel
Shipmate
# 1258
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Custard.:
Actually, no. In Gen 14, the land of the Amalekites is mentioned as an area, but without any Amalekites around. If Genesis was written during the early monarchy (which there's quite a bit of circumstancial evidence for e.g. Gen 36:1), it makes perfect sense to talk about that area as the land of the Amalekites, in the same way that we might say that the Persians were a civilisation that was based in Iran.
Thanks - that's a reasonable explanation, although it's difficult to know if it's correct.
Even if I - for now - accept your explanation of the origin of the Amalekites, I'm not sure that this helps. Your argument was that under Deuteronomy 20, the Amalekites didn't need to be slaughtered, they could just have surrendered their property without a fight and been spared. Hence, I guess you would argue that they shouldn't have attacked the Israelites in Exodus 17, because if the Israelites had attacked the Amalekite cities, the Amalekites could have surrendered and been spared. I have two problems with this:
(1) The Amalekites probaby hadn't read Deuteronomy 20
(2) If the Amalekites had read Deuteronomy 20 they probably wouldn't have considered it a fair deal.
The other problem here with arguing from Deuteronomy 20 is that verses 16 and 17 of that chapter are another example of God commanding genocide, and sadly in that case there is no getout clause for the unfortunate Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites. In fact, I would cheerfully nominate Deuteronomy 20:16 for the worst verse in the Bible as well, but if I do I'll sound like a one-note opera.
Sanityman - I know that there are other ways of looking at this verse, which assume God didn't command the genocide. However, Custard and I are having a discussion from within a particular view of the Bible, which tends to assume the authors of the Bible were both honest and accurate. I'm more comfortable with your explanation to be honest, but I worry about how much of the Bible we need to treat in this fashion, and whether it leads to us making God in our own image, by simply picking the verses we like.
All the best,
Rachel.
--------------------
A shrivelled appendix to the body of Christ.
Posts: 912 | From: In the lab. | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the famous rachel:
Even if I - for now - accept your explanation of the origin of the Amalekites, I'm not sure that this helps. Your argument was that under Deuteronomy 20, the Amalekites didn't need to be slaughtered, they could just have surrendered their property without a fight and been spared. Hence, I guess you would argue that they shouldn't have attacked the Israelites in Exodus 17, because if the Israelites had attacked the Amalekite cities, the Amalekites could have surrendered and been spared. I have two problems with this:
(1) The Amalekites probaby hadn't read Deuteronomy 20
(2) If the Amalekites had read Deuteronomy 20 they probably wouldn't have considered it a fair deal.
Deuteronomy 20 is set a good 40 years after Exodus 17...
The Israelites were never meant to take land from the Amalekites - like the Edomites in Numbers 20, the Israelites weren't a threat to them. They aren't in any of the lists of people Israel was meant to attack.
Incidentally, I'm writing up some of my thoughts on this at slight greater length on my blog.
I agree too that the Canaanites are a similar but different case, and I think they need a slightly different set of arguments, but the Canaanite genocides tend to be discussed more in the literature. See here for a recent paper discussing the ethics of the Canaanite genocide, for example.
--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.
Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
TiggyTiger
Shipmate
# 14819
|
Posted
I find it a bit odd to be discussing the ethics of ANY genocide!
--------------------
'Each and everybody is hiding, each is concealing the place where his heart beats.'
Daniel Barenboim
Posts: 347 | From: Bath | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TiggyTiger:
I find it a bit odd to be discussing the ethics of ANY genocide!
Quite.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
the famous rachel
Shipmate
# 1258
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Custard.:
Deuteronomy 20 is set a good 40 years after Exodus 17...
Sorry - I was being slightly facetious. My point was that in ancient times, if you saw a huge group of people from another tribe coming through or worryingly near your territory, it's unlikely that your response would be to check up on their religious rules on who should be massacred and who shouldn't. You'd probably attack first and ask questions later. Instinctively, people react strongly - sometimes rashly - to perceived threats to their homes, loved ones and land. This may suggest they are misguided and silly - and possibly also violent and unpleasant. However, it doesn't actually make them evil and utterly in opposition to God's good plan.
I'll try and read the links you posted later. I'm at work now, and had probably better get back down to it shortly.
Rachel.
--------------------
A shrivelled appendix to the body of Christ.
Posts: 912 | From: In the lab. | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kid Who Cracked
Shipmate
# 13963
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by TiggyTiger:
I find it a bit odd to be discussing the ethics of ANY genocide!
Quite.
Indeed. But if you're going to use the Bible alone as proof of anything, it seems that you should be able to have some valid explanation of such passages.
Posts: 532 | From: Texas | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
LutheranChik
Shipmate
# 9826
|
Posted
I'm just shaking my head at the compulsion to make the Bible "come out right" by engaging in whatever tortured logic makes genocide sound sensible. Y'all really think that "The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it" makes faith-based genocide okay? ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Thanks for making pomo agnosticism sound even more appealing than it is already.
--------------------
Simul iustus et peccator
http://www.lutheranchiklworddiary.blogspot.com
Posts: 6462 | From: rural Michigan, USA | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kid Who Cracked:
But if you're going to use the Bible alone as proof of anything
That's Ok then, coz I'm not.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
The only way this passage 'works' for me is to either treat it (a)as inspired by God but not literally, historically true (ie: it's an analogy of the need for each Christian to totally extirpate all sin from our lives) or (b) literally, historically true but not inspired by God (ie: the genocide happened but Samuel was mistaken in what God said to him). What I can't integrate into my being is (c) that it historically happened and it was ordered by God as being an action that was to be literally executed.
--------------------
"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
|
|
the famous rachel
Shipmate
# 1258
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
Y'all really think that "The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it" makes faith-based genocide okay?
Actually, no. I don't think anything makes faith-based genocide OK. However, I'm trying to work through the logic of the conservative evangelical perspective. Currently, I don't think it holds water. Nonetheless, wanting to engage in the related discussion doesn't necessarily make me stupid or heartless.
Rachel.
[Edited for spelling]
[ 17. August 2009, 19:29: Message edited by: the famous rachel ]
Posts: 912 | From: In the lab. | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
I'm just shaking my head at the compulsion to make the Bible "come out right" by engaging in whatever tortured logic makes genocide sound sensible. Y'all really think that "The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it" makes faith-based genocide okay?
Nope - that's why I'm wrestling with it.
I see it a bit like getting a weird result in a scientific experiment. It doesn't mean we should ditch the whole of known science - we need to do some work to see if it can be made to fit in with what we already know first, and see if it was due to gas leaking in or a loose connection in the meter or something like that.
In the same way, I guess I see passages like 1 Samuel 15 as a bit like a rogue data point. It doesn't fit in with what I expect, but I don't think that necessarily means that I have to ditch my views on the inspiration of Scripture or the character of God.
What we need is to do a bit of work to see if it can be reconciled with what else we know. And that's what I'm trying to do, and I honestly think it can.
I've now got to the point where I'm fairly sure the command is about destroying Amalek identity rather than all of the Amalekites...
--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.
Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sarah G
Shipmate
# 11669
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Custard.:
What we need is to do a bit of work to see if it can be reconciled with what else we know. And that's what I'm trying to do, and I honestly think it can.
I've now got to the point where I'm fairly sure the command is about destroying Amalek identity rather than all of the Amalekites...
Is right.
This was a period when wars worked very differently to nowadays. If you were locked into a war with another tribe, and you got the chance, you wiped them out. They will most certainly do the same to you if they got the chance. Putting your enemies in a position where they can't hurt you again was a prerequisite for survival, rather than a moral choice.
We need to be wary of reading C21 ideas of war into a BC tribal warfare situation.
Posts: 514 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Great Gumby
Ship's Brain Surgeon
# 10989
|
Posted
Right.
So is genocide objectively bad, then?
--------------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. - Richard Feynman
A letter to my son about death
Posts: 5382 | From: Home for shot clergy spouses | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
Right.
So is genocide objectively bad, then?
Define "genocide".
The paper I linked to argued that the Biblical "genocides" are actually corporate capital punishment.
I tend to argue that they're protecting God's plan to bless the world. And when people attack it, those people get at least one opportunity (individually and corporately) to repent and quit their attack, and if they don't, God acts to protect his plan.
I don't know if that (especially since such events are always in the context of war) counts as genocide or not. It doesn't seem to involve dehumanisation or lack of mercy or love (all of which I do think are objectively wrong).
I don't think the action commanded in 1 Samuel 15:3 is objectively wrong. And yes, the main reason I think that is because God commands it, but I think there are adequate possible justifications for it.
--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.
Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Great Gumby
Ship's Brain Surgeon
# 10989
|
Posted
So it would have been OK for Hitler to exterminate the Jews if he warned them and called it "corporate capital punishment"?
No, you can't really be saying that. Can you?
[ETA: Mind you, I like the idea of wholesale slaughter not involving a lack of mercy or love. Rather like Monty Python's "lightly killed" crunchy frog.]
[ 18. August 2009, 15:03: Message edited by: The Great Gumby ]
--------------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. - Richard Feynman
A letter to my son about death
Posts: 5382 | From: Home for shot clergy spouses | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
So it would have been OK for Hitler to exterminate the Jews if he warned them and called it "corporate capital punishment"?
No, you can't really be saying that. Can you?
Nope.
You might want to think about these different scenarios.
Scene 1: A nutter with a gun shoots a load of innocent people in a shopping mall.
Scene 2: Said nutter gets sentenced to death and killed by a state executioner, duly appointed for that purpose.
Scene 3: A policeman knows that there is a nutter planning to shoot people at the mall. So he follows the nutter and waits until the nutter pulls his gun out. The policeman then shoots and kills the nutter before he can open fire.
Scene 1 is what Hitler did.
I'm arguing that scenes 2 and 3 are much closer to what happened in 1 Samuel 15 and elsewhere.
--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.
Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Great Gumby
Ship's Brain Surgeon
# 10989
|
Posted
Riiiight. So Hitler was an evil nutter, whereas this is "the nice sort of genocide", where a friendly policeman comes along, shoots a guy because he looked like he might have been holding a gun, then guns down all his family, friends, and then - aw, hell with it - just nukes the bastard's whole country into oblivion to be on the safe side. And that's OK because it's just capital punishment on a global scale.
Forgive me if I remain unconvinced.
--------------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. - Richard Feynman
A letter to my son about death
Posts: 5382 | From: Home for shot clergy spouses | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
sanityman
Shipmate
# 11598
|
Posted
The policeman argument seems to rely on corporate responibility of a people being the same as individual responsibility for an act of murder (or attempted murder). I just don't see that you can hold the powerless people of a nation to blame for the actions of the rulers of that nation, and therefore I don't think the analogy holds. They're not being justly punished, they're "collateral damage" in today's euphemism du jour.
...Oh, except they're not: they were killed deliberately, and in cold blood. I'm not sure the "nutters" here are the Amelekites.
- Chris.
--------------------
Prophesy to the wind, to the wind only for only the wind will listen - TS Eliot
Posts: 1453 | From: London, UK | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sarah G
Shipmate
# 11669
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
Right.
So is genocide objectively bad, then?
Ah, you're taking the same term, and assuming it functions the same way now as it did then.
In the 21st century, genocide is bad. End of.
In the context of BC tribal warfare, where it is a case of "If your tribe remains viable, they will do their best to wipe us all out", the morality is rather less clear. They're going to try to kill your family.
Think Hannibal Lecter. If he took a murderous dislike to you, you would, in this day and age, accept rather uneasily the idea of him being alive in a high security prison.
In BC times, you would kill him before he got to you.
Posts: 514 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sarah G
Shipmate
# 11669
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sanityman:
The policeman argument seems to rely on corporate responibility of a people being the same as individual responsibility for an act of murder (or attempted murder). I just don't see that you can hold the powerless people of a nation to blame for the actions of the rulers of that nation, and therefore I don't think the analogy holds. They're not being justly punished, they're "collateral damage" in today's euphemism du jour.
...Oh, except they're not: they were killed deliberately, and in cold blood. I'm not sure the "nutters" here are the Amelekites.
- Chris.
But we're not talking here about the modern sort of war fought by professional armies in which minimising civilian suffering is an expected behaviour. We're talking about total war.
There have been periods in history when the former was the main type of conflict. In First World countries today, there is a requirement that non-combatants should not be involved.
But for other long periods, the civilian population has been rightly viewed as an important resource for providing the means to wage war. Where that is the case, military leaders have viewed the destruction of civilian resources as being legitimate. Civilians will be “killed in cold blood”. The Second World War was fought with that as a basic premise on both sides- the Blitz, Dresden, Hiroshima. Attitudes have changed to civilian casualties down the centuries depending on the nature of the conflict being fought.
Indeed, those of us who are not going through puberty will have seen a shift in our lifetimes. With the expansion of use of satellite guided missiles, the attitude to collateral civilian damage changed between the First and Second Gulf Wars.
Now in BC tribal warfare, it was total war. If you left your enemy with the capacity to build the means to wage war, they were going to do so in your direction at some point in the future. And in 1 Samuel 30, the Amalekites did just that, destroying Ziklag.
(More generally, but vitally, I find myself forgetting above that the whole thing functions as a story.)
[ 18. August 2009, 21:21: Message edited by: Sarah G ]
Posts: 514 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
sanityman
Shipmate
# 11598
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sarah G:
quote:
Originally posted by sanityman:
The policeman argument seems to rely on corporate responibility of a people being the same as individual responsibility for an act of murder (or attempted murder). I just don't see that you can hold the powerless people of a nation to blame for the actions of the rulers of that nation, and therefore I don't think the analogy holds. They're not being justly punished, they're "collateral damage" in today's euphemism du jour.
...Oh, except they're not: they were killed deliberately, and in cold blood. I'm not sure the "nutters" here are the Amelekites.
- Chris.
But we're not talking here about the modern sort of war fought by professional armies in which minimising civilian suffering is an expected behaviour. We're talking about total war.
There have been periods in history when the former was the main type of conflict. In First World countries today, there is a requirement that non-combatants should not be involved.
But for other long periods, the civilian population has been rightly viewed as an important resource for providing the means to wage war. Where that is the case, military leaders have viewed the destruction of civilian resources as being legitimate. Civilians will be “killed in cold blood”. The Second World War was fought with that as a basic premise on both sides- the Blitz, Dresden, Hiroshima. Attitudes have changed to civilian casualties down the centuries depending on the nature of the conflict being fought.
Indeed, those of us who are not going through puberty will have seen a shift in our lifetimes. With the expansion of use of satellite guided missiles, the attitude to collateral civilian damage changed between the First and Second Gulf Wars.
Now in BC tribal warfare, it was total war. If you left your enemy with the capacity to build the means to wage war, they were going to do so in your direction at some point in the future. And in 1 Samuel 30, the Amalekites did just that, destroying Ziklag.
(More generally, but vitally, I find myself forgetting above that the whole thing functions as a story.)
Of course, the proportion of civilians dead as a percentage of total war dead has been rising for every major conflict since about WW1, so nothing new there - as you say, we explictly targeted civilians in WW2.
However, what I thought we were talking about was morality, and just stating historical precedent as justification doesn't work. Destruction of opposing tribes may have been understandable or even standard practice, but that doesn't mean it's a moral way to behave any more than I think there's an equivalence between Jesus Christ and Genghis Khan.
The question was: is genocide ever justified, not whether it was commonplace. My point was that individual responsibility is different in kind than corporate responsibility, especially if those individuals have no say in the culpable actions in question. That makes wholesale "capital punishment" immoral.
- Chris.
--------------------
Prophesy to the wind, to the wind only for only the wind will listen - TS Eliot
Posts: 1453 | From: London, UK | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
Riiiight. So Hitler was an evil nutter, whereas this is "the nice sort of genocide", where a friendly policeman comes along, shoots a guy because he looked like he might have been holding a gun, then guns down all his family, friends, and then - aw, hell with it - just nukes the bastard's whole country into oblivion to be on the safe side. And that's OK because it's just capital punishment on a global scale.
Forgive me if I remain unconvinced.
Except you don't seem to understand my argument.
I've argued that the Amalekites were given the opportunity to get out of there - the only people who were left at the time of the slaughter were the people who wanted to be there rather than surrender to Israel.
I've argued too that we're not talking about one individual within the Amalekites being set on the destruction of God's plan to bless the world. It is the whole nation that has set itself on a collision course with God. So people have the choice either to get out of that nation and change their identity, or to be destroyed.
--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.
Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leaf
Shipmate
# 14169
|
Posted
Originally posted by Custard: quote:
So people have the choice either to get out of that nation and change their identity, or to be destroyed.
Some choice.
Actually what really blows my mind is the God portrayed a few verses later, in verse 10: God is pissed off that Saul spared the lives of King Agag and some sheep, while being pleased that everything and everyone else was put to the sword. I suppose Saul's disobedience is the perceived point here, but really! What kind of God is this?
BTW my favourite way of coping with the portrayal of God in the historical books is a paraphrase of Karen Armstrong's: The way in which people perceive God "grows up" in the course of the Bible. Not that God changes (who can know?) but that human understanding changes. These verses in 1 Sam. reveal a very early understanding of God as a horrible psychopathic little tribal god. However, the understanding of God changes and expands... from a God of one tribe, to a God of twelve tribes, to a God of all nations.
Posts: 2786 | From: the electrical field | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sarah G
Shipmate
# 11669
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sanityman:
Of course, the proportion of civilians dead as a percentage of total war dead has been rising for every major conflict since about WW1, so nothing new there - as you say, we explictly targeted civilians in WW2.
However, what I thought we were talking about was morality, and just stating historical precedent as justification doesn't work. Destruction of opposing tribes may have been understandable or even standard practice, but that doesn't mean it's a moral way to behave any more than I think there's an equivalence between Jesus Christ and Genghis Khan.
The question was: is genocide ever justified, not whether it was commonplace. My point was that individual responsibility is different in kind than corporate responsibility, especially if those individuals have no say in the culpable actions in question. That makes wholesale "capital punishment" immoral.
- Chris.
Genocide is a very emotive word that almost seems to demand the reaction, “Of course it's wrong!”. I'm not so sure it's as simple as that. Is there a word equivalent to “killing” that can be used of tribes?
If I reasonably believe my life is in immediate danger and kill someone as a result, it isn't generally taken as wrong, because it is viewed as self-defence. It's called “killing”, rather than “murder”. I am arguing that Israel's action was the national equivalent of killing, rather than murder.
Once Israel set off on a course to fight the Amalekites, they had to finish the job, or deal in the future with a tribe that would be destroying villages, killing their people, and ultimately trying to wipe Israel out.
Nations go to war with nations. Individuals are part of the nation, and cannot in what I have described as total wars be regarded separately. In total war, effective war is only waged by including the individuals that make up the civilian power base as one of your military targets. Unless you are fighting very asymmetric warfare, you have no moral choice to make. You must attack the civilian power base, or they will generate military means for the enemy nation.
(Non-combatant genocide is a requirement of the nuclear deterrent. No nation possessing the bomb has yet declared the possibility of its use immoral. We are in effect as a nation saying genocide could be acceptable.)
(And again, I forget it is a story)
Posts: 514 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
sanityman
Shipmate
# 11598
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sarah G:
Genocide is a very emotive word that almost seems to demand the reaction, “Of course it's wrong!”. I'm not so sure it's as simple as that. Is there a word equivalent to “killing” that can be used of tribes?
I agree that "genocide" is an emotive word, but I'm not sure that English has another word for "mass ethnic killing." If it did, I suspect it would acquire negative connotations almost at once.
quote:
If I reasonably believe my life is in immediate danger and kill someone as a result, it isn't generally taken as wrong, because it is viewed as self-defence. It's called “killing”, rather than “murder”. I am arguing that Israel's action was the national equivalent of killing, rather than murder.
And my original point was that individual self-defence is a bad analogy with nation-on-nation extermination. You have stated that it was pragmatic, or necessary, for tribes to behave like that. Whilst it may be true on some level, I maintain that killing babies lest they grow up to be soldiers is not just or moral behaviour.
quote:
In total war, effective war is only waged by including the individuals that make up the civilian power base as one of your military targets. Unless you are fighting very asymmetric warfare, you have no moral choice to make. You must attack the civilian power base, or they will generate military means for the enemy nation.
You seem to imply that a state of (total) war abrogates the requirement to behave morally. I'd be interested to know the reasoning behind that. The historical reality (that this is how nations have in fact behaved) is not contested.
quote:
(Non-combatant genocide is a requirement of the nuclear deterrent. No nation possessing the bomb has yet declared the possibility of its use immoral. We are in effect as a nation saying genocide could be acceptable.)
Yes. This should probably give us an awful lot more pause for thought than it does. We are able to commit genocide on a scale which makes the Amelekites look like small potatoes. Some Christians agree.
quote:
(And again, I forget it is a story)
Agreed. What do you think we should learn from the story? (genuine question).
- Chris.
PS: this is probably getting a bit far from the C&W mandate. If anyone's interested, I'd be happy to start a thread in Purg about the morality of total war, and individual vs. corporate justice..?
--------------------
Prophesy to the wind, to the wind only for only the wind will listen - TS Eliot
Posts: 1453 | From: London, UK | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
I know not everyone's going to agree with this, but this is where I ended up in my thoughts about the Amalekites...
Jesus is made the True Amalek
As the Bible goes on, it becomes clear that the enmity to God and his plans which was so clear in the Amalekites is found in each individual person. We all try to resist God's plan, to reject our part in it and oppose Jesus' lordship. And the Bible calls that sin. But in one of the most shocking verses of the Bible, we read this.
quote:
God made him who had no sin [i.e. Jesus] to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.
2 Corinthians 5:21, NIV
Jesus became the personification of all opposition to God. He was made the true Amalek as well as the true Israel. He became the one who had to be killed so that God could bless the whole world. And he did that for us, for those who reject him and oppose him, so that we can know what it means to be part of God's true people.
That is the true and lasting significance of the sentence to destruction in 1 Samuel 15. It is the sentence that God himself in the person of Jesus chose to take on himself for us. Jesus becomes the person whom God destroys so that we can become the people whom God defends.
--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.
Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leaf
Shipmate
# 14169
|
Posted
But Custard, isn't a key part of your idea the voluntary nature of Christ's sacrifice? That he took this upon himself willingly? Surely having the ability to choose, to be a moral agent, is crucial. Is that also true of the Amalekite children and infants? Did they have an option?
Of course not. Under the patriarchal tribal system, they were simply part of the collective; there seems to have been little opportunity to exercise individual choice.
If anything, through the course of the Bible, we see a movement away from killing something else which stands for our sin (sheep, Amalekites) and toward individual choice and responsibility for battling sin within. The ultimate choice being Christ's, who chose to sacrifice his life for the sins of others.
Posts: 2786 | From: the electrical field | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leaf:
But Custard, isn't a key part of your idea the voluntary nature of Christ's sacrifice? That he took this upon himself willingly? Surely having the ability to choose, to be a moral agent, is crucial. Is that also true of the Amalekite children and infants? Did they have an option?
I agree that Christ chose to become a sacrifice.
Did the Amalekite children and infants have a choice? The heads of their households clearly did.
Let's look at what 1 Samuel 15 says happened.
- v1-3 Samuel tells Saul to attack
- v4 Saul musters the men. 200,000 of them (though there are difficulties with Hebrew numbers in the OT). That probably takes quite a long time, and the Amalekites would have heard about it. Standing armies, of course, hadn't been invented.
- v5 Saul goes up to the Amalekite city
- v6 Saul tells all the Kenites to leave the city, and lets them out. The Kenites seem to be living in the same city as the Amalekites.
- v7 onwards Saul attacks the Amalekites.
Now, if I was an Amalekite, unless I really really hated Israel, I'd have got out of this city somewhere around v4. And even if I was still there by v6, I'd have told my wife and kids to be Kenites for a bit and get out to safety.
Even though the passage said Saul killed all the people except Agag, there's still plenty who seem to escape to fight again. So it's more likely that it's "killed everyone" in the sense of "didn't take prisoners" rather than "hunted absolutely everywhere".
OT scholar John Goldingay points out "When a city is in danger of falling, people do not
simply wait there to be killed; they get out... Only people who do not get out, such as the city's
defenders, get killed."
So yes, I think the women and children had a choice. They could run away.
--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.
Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
sanityman
Shipmate
# 11598
|
Posted
In the hope that it's of interest: after thinking a bit more about the nature of my problem with this passage, I've started a thread in Purgatory about divine commands to do otherwise unconscionable acts.
- Chris.
--------------------
Prophesy to the wind, to the wind only for only the wind will listen - TS Eliot
Posts: 1453 | From: London, UK | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
the famous rachel
Shipmate
# 1258
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Custard.:
So yes, I think the women and children had a choice. They could run away.
Three problems:
1. By running away, they would certainly be leaving their livestock to be slaughtered. (God commanded that oxen, sheep etc should be destroyed) and they would probably anticipate all other property they left behind being destroyed too. As a women in the ancient world, being left as a widow with no possessions is not a great recipe for survival. You're really saying:
quote:
So yes, I think the women and children had a choice. They could die slowly rather than quickly.
2. Even if running away didn't have disastrous consequences, there would clearly be some people for whom it still wasn't an option. In your version, it seems that if a sick woman with a baby heard that the Israelites were coming to attack the city, but failed to run away because she was too weak and unwell, she and her infant deserved to die.
3. This isn't about whether some of the Amalekites might or might not have made it to safety under some interpretations of the passage. This is about God's express desire, and God definitely suggested that every Amalekite should be killed. He didn't suggest giving them a chance to run away. This is meant to be an all-knowing, all powerful deity. Is "go kill the lot of them" really the best he could come up with?
All the best,
Rachel.
--------------------
A shrivelled appendix to the body of Christ.
Posts: 912 | From: In the lab. | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sarah G:
This was a period when wars worked very differently to nowadays. If you were locked into a war with another tribe, and you got the chance, you wiped them out. They will most certainly do the same to you if they got the chance. Putting your enemies in a position where they can't hurt you again was a prerequisite for survival, rather than a moral choice.
[...]
Now in BC tribal warfare, it was total war. If you left your enemy with the capacity to build the means to wage war, they were going to do so in your direction at some point in the future.
Is that true, though?
The Biblical narratives in the Judges/Kings period describe wars fought for territory, for resources, for slaves, to avenge insults, to defend allies, for dominance and for tribute. They describe wars of conquest, set-piece battles, sudden raids and border skirmishes. Wars fought with the intent of annihilating the enemy are the exception rather than the rule. Particularly the sort of total destruction that extends to portable livestock (this, you steal, in the ordinary course of tribal war).
I see a clue to understanding the ‘genocide' verses in Acts 17:26-27 (St Paul speaking in Athens):
quote:
From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us.
God is seen as the dominant force in global politics and history - nations rise and fall, and God can and does influence this to bring about his own good purposes. If God is the cause why you don't tend to meet many Amalekites nowadays, the reason is that more people are seeking and finding salvation than they would do otherwise.
One way in which nations cease to exist is by being on the losing side in war. We need not suppose that God approves of war (in general) to allow that he might well use the fact that human societies tend to fight to advance his own plans. If it is necessary for the salvation of the world that Israel survive and Amalek perish, or that Rome rather than Carthage should shape the course of Western civilisation, then it might be right for God to give the victory accordingly. It might even be right for this to take the form of a command to go to war - if God is omnipotent, he must be in some way involved in every human death, and no more responsible for death in warfare than death by disease or from age. If the Amalkite culture had gone wrong, and so badly wrong that God had to bring it to an end, it seems to me not inherently more problematic to do it by war rather than by any other means.
That need not imply a particular moral defect in all the individual Amalekites (or even any of them) making them especially worthy of punishment. God might well have been pleased with the efforts some of them had made to do right within the context of a poisonous culture, and regarded the infants as being as innocent as those of any other nation, but still have found it necessary to end the life of that society.
That's as far as I can get to justify it. Then I hit this problem: granted all that, what should the individual Israelite soldier have done when ordered to stick his knife into a baby? Can that soldier possibly have been so certain that the command was divine, and that God was right to give it, that to obey would have been righteous? Surely not. I can, intellectually, accept that God has the authority to use and to ordain bodily death for his good purposes, and that he has the wisdom to know when it is necessary and right to do so. I don't accept that human beings do (or that any prophetic word or show of power could prove a seemingly wicked command to be divine - the devil can do such things).
So even if the giving of the command can be justified, I don't see that obedience to it ever could. It would always be better to say "Lord, I do not know whether this word is from you, but I do know that you would have me do right, and that to kill the innocent is not right. Therefore I will not believe of you what seems to be evil. There is nothing that could make me certain that the command is yours, and if I am not certain, then I must disobey. If I am wrong, forgive me".
And I don't think that God gives commands which it would be a sin to follow.
But, of course, Saul appears not to have had any such misgivings (he is happy do do the murders, he just wants to keep the loot). Maybe he is, in this limited respect, no more a moral agent than a lethal bacterium. We don't (generally) find that it causes a theological crisis if God uses an amoral bacterium to kill someone not personally known to us (maybe we should, but we don't), so perhaps we shouldn't find it a problem if he uses an amoral king in the same way.
I don't expect that to satisfy anyone else. It doesn't satisfy me. But I think that, if I was commited to scriptural inerrancy, I would at least start on these lines, rather than by assuming that some sort of national guilt ever makes it right to execute toddlers.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
sanityman
Shipmate
# 11598
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
So even if the giving of the command can be justified, I don't see that obedience to it ever could. It would always be better to say "Lord, I do not know whether this word is from you, but I do know that you would have me do right, and that to kill the innocent is not right. Therefore I will not believe of you what seems to be evil. There is nothing that could make me certain that the command is yours, and if I am not certain, then I must disobey. If I am wrong, forgive me".
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif) I think this is the crux of the issue. A God that uses existing human wickedness to further His own ends is very different from an "ends justify the means" God. If this wasn't in the Bible, but instead in some other contemporary history, would anyone even try to justify it?
- Chris.
--------------------
Prophesy to the wind, to the wind only for only the wind will listen - TS Eliot
Posts: 1453 | From: London, UK | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pre-cambrian
Shipmate
# 2055
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sanityman:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
So even if the giving of the command can be justified, I don't see that obedience to it ever could. It would always be better to say "Lord, I do not know whether this word is from you, but I do know that you would have me do right, and that to kill the innocent is not right. Therefore I will not believe of you what seems to be evil. There is nothing that could make me certain that the command is yours, and if I am not certain, then I must disobey. If I am wrong, forgive me".
I think this is the crux of the issue. A God that uses existing human wickedness to further His own ends is very different from an "ends justify the means" God. If this wasn't in the Bible, but instead in some other contemporary history, would anyone even try to justify it?
I don't think this stands up logically or morally. If it is true that it is not right to kill the innocent, then it is equally true that it is not right to issue the order to kill the innocent. God can't have a get out of gaol free card because he's God.
Put in entirely human terms we prosecute the person who commissions a murder as well as the one who pulls the trigger. The godfather can't get off by protesting he was only using "existing human wickedness" because the gunman had form.
There was a reference to the Nuremberg Defence earlier on, but this would be like not only rejecting the Nuremberg Defence itself but lauding those who gave the orders.
--------------------
"We cannot leave the appointment of Bishops to the Holy Ghost, because no one is confident that the Holy Ghost would understand what makes a good Church of England bishop."
Posts: 2314 | From: Croydon | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
sanityman
Shipmate
# 11598
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
quote:
Originally posted by sanityman:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
So even if the giving of the command can be justified, I don't see that obedience to it ever could. It would always be better to say "Lord, I do not know whether this word is from you, but I do know that you would have me do right, and that to kill the innocent is not right. Therefore I will not believe of you what seems to be evil. There is nothing that could make me certain that the command is yours, and if I am not certain, then I must disobey. If I am wrong, forgive me".
I think this is the crux of the issue. A God that uses existing human wickedness to further His own ends is very different from an "ends justify the means" God. If this wasn't in the Bible, but instead in some other contemporary history, would anyone even try to justify it?
I don't think this stands up logically or morally. If it is true that it is not right to kill the innocent, then it is equally true that it is not right to issue the order to kill the innocent. God can't have a get out of gaol free card because he's God.
Put in entirely human terms we prosecute the person who commissions a murder as well as the one who pulls the trigger. The godfather can't get off by protesting he was only using "existing human wickedness" because the gunman had form.
There was a reference to the Nuremberg Defence earlier on, but this would be like not only rejecting the Nuremberg Defence itself but lauding those who gave the orders.
I think I explained myself rather badly ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif) .
I wasn't suggesting that God condoned human wickedness - merely that he wasn't thwarted by it, but, once it had happened in opposition to his wishes, he would use it to further his purposes that good might come out of evil. I think there's a difference between this God, and a God who commands the evil deeds in the first place.
The crucial thing I was referring to was Eliab's contention that it would not be right to accept such orders (we're back to Nuremberg again!). Which is the bit that matters for us, really.
- Chris.
--------------------
Prophesy to the wind, to the wind only for only the wind will listen - TS Eliot
Posts: 1453 | From: London, UK | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
I don't think this stands up logically or morally. If it is true that it is not right to kill the innocent, then it is equally true that it is not right to issue the order to kill the innocent. God can't have a get out of gaol free card because he's God.
I agree with that.
But, don't we in fact accept that God has, in general, a right to cause death - death of individuals and death of nations? Everyone dies. God, being omnipotent, is involved in each death. He, at least, consents to it. Every believer knows this, and is able to reconcile that, somehow, with his faith. We take it on trust, I think, that it is somehow better for a fallen, sinful world to be set up thus, with death in it, than if there were no end to this life.
And if God can morally cause death, it is no more problematic for him to do so indirectly, at human hands, than in any other way.
What is problematic is that God should command someone to do a wicked act. That's what I think he doesn't get a free pass about. And that's why my tentative answers to the problems of this verse don't satisfy me.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pre-cambrian
Shipmate
# 2055
|
Posted
But what in reality is the difference between causing death and killing?
If on the one hand there is "God has a right to cause death", but on the other hand there is "Thou shalt not kill". That seems to me to suggest, to put it mildly, a difference in standards. Isn't God saying "do as I say, not do as I do"? And why, therefore, should anybody respect him?
--------------------
"We cannot leave the appointment of Bishops to the Holy Ghost, because no one is confident that the Holy Ghost would understand what makes a good Church of England bishop."
Posts: 2314 | From: Croydon | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
sanityman
Shipmate
# 11598
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
Isn't God saying "do as I say, not do as I do"? And why, therefore, should anybody respect him?
Isn't that true for a parent that tells their 8-year-old child they can't drive the car?
- Chris.
--------------------
Prophesy to the wind, to the wind only for only the wind will listen - TS Eliot
Posts: 1453 | From: London, UK | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
